Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Mississippi

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF MISSISSIPPI

[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Mississippi ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Mississippi

DATE: [Date]

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL, RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
AND FIRST-CLASS MAIL

[Claims Representative Name / General Counsel]
[Property Owner / Management Company / Insurance Company Name]
[Street Address]
[City, State ZIP]

RE: PREMISES LIABILITY DEMAND - SLIP AND FALL
Our Client: [Client Full Name]
Date of Incident: [Date of Fall]
Location of Incident: [Full Address of Property]
Property Owner: [Property Owner Name]
Claim Number: [Claim Number, if assigned]

Dear [Recipient Name]:

This firm represents [Client Name] ("Claimant") for injuries sustained on [Date of Incident] at premises owned and/or controlled by your insured/client, located at [Property Address] in [City], [County] County, Mississippi. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.

I. MISSISSIPPI-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Mississippi Code Annotated § 15-1-49 generally requires an action for which no other period is prescribed to be commenced within three years after the cause of action accrued. Its latent-injury subsection uses discovery or reasonable diligence. Do not calculate an expiration date solely from the incident date without analyzing accrual, the defendant, any more specific limitation, and tolling.

Limitations review: [Describe accrual, special defendant, tolling, and calculated deadline]

B. Mississippi Pure Comparative Negligence

Mississippi follows pure comparative negligence under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-7-15. A plaintiff may recover damages reduced by their percentage of fault, regardless of whether the plaintiff's fault exceeds that of the defendant.

Our client was exercising reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.

C. Mississippi Premises Liability Standards

Traditional Classifications Apply:
Mississippi retains the common law classifications of entrants:

1. Invitees (Business Visitors): A property owner owes an invitee reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn of a dangerous condition that is not readily apparent and that the owner knows or should know about through reasonable care. The owner is not an insurer of every visitor's safety. Landry v. Vallman McComb Mall, LLC, No. 2022-CA-00439-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Aug. 29, 2023).

2. Standard of Care:
In a slip-and-fall case, a claimant may prove breach by showing that: (1) a negligent act of the defendant caused the injury; (2) the defendant had actual knowledge of a dangerous condition and failed to warn; or (3) the condition existed long enough to impute constructive knowledge. The claimant must also prove a dangerous condition, duty, breach, causation, and damages.

Our client was a business invitee, entitled to the reasonable-care duties described above.

D. Mississippi "Open and Obvious" Doctrine

Open and obvious is not an absolute defense or complete bar to a Mississippi premises claim. It can defeat a failure-to-warn theory when the condition is actually open and obvious, but it does not exempt a defendant from liability for negligently creating the dangerous condition. For a nongovernmental defendant, the claimant's failure to avoid an obvious hazard may instead be compared under Mississippi's comparative-negligence rules. Vivians v. Baptist Healthplex, 234 So. 3d 304 (Miss. 2017); Womack v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC, No. 2023-CA-00035-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Dec. 17, 2024); Joiner v. City of Holly Springs, No. 2024-CA-01085-COA (Miss. Ct. App. Feb. 24, 2026).

Here, the hazardous condition was NOT open and obvious because: [Explain].

E. Mississippi Snow and Ice Liability

Under Blanton v. Gardner's Supermarket, Inc., 45 So. 3d 1223 (Miss. Ct. App. 2010), applying Fulton v. Robinson Industries, Inc., 664 So. 2d 170 (Miss. 1995), a business generally is not liable for a known and appreciated natural accumulation of snow or ice in a remote part of the premises. A natural condition immediately adjacent to an entrance, or an artificial condition created or materially aggravated by the defendant, requires a different analysis. Minor parking-lot depressions holding naturally occurring precipitation do not alone make the condition artificial.

[If applicable:] The ice/snow condition in this case [describe circumstances].

F. Mississippi Damage Caps

Under Mississippi Code Annotated Section 11-1-60, non-economic damages are capped at $1,000,000 per plaintiff in civil actions.

Economic damages are not subject to this cap.

G. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

Mississippi Code Annotated § 11-46-11 generally requires a written notice of claim at least 90 days before suit, with specified facts and delivery method. Serve a county's chancery clerk, a municipality's city clerk, or the chief executive officer of another political subdivision or state entity. An MTCA action generally must be commenced within one year after the actionable conduct; timely notice tolls that period for 95 days, and the denial/waiting provisions control when suit may begin and the additional filing window.

Effective in 2026, § 11-46-20 requires the Tort Claims Board's online registry of covered governmental entities and chief-executive contact information. If registry information is incorrect when § 11-46-11 notice is served, the one-year period is tolled until correct information is listed.

[If applicable:] Proper notice was provided on [Date].

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE

YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this incident, including:

• All surveillance video footage from the date of incident
• Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
• Incident/accident reports
• Maintenance logs and repair records
• Inspection records and checklists
• Cleaning schedules and logs
• Prior complaints and prior incidents
• Photographs of the incident location

When spoliation is proved, Mississippi permits an instruction allowing—but not requiring—the jury to infer that the missing evidence was unfavorable to the responsible party. Negligent loss can suffice; the remedy depends on proof and the record. Renner v. Retzer Resources, Inc., 236 So. 3d 810 (Miss. 2017).

III. STATEMENT OF FACTS

A. The Premises

The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City], [County] County, Mississippi. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, and/or controlled the subject premises.

B. The Hazardous Condition

On the date of the incident, a dangerous condition existed on the premises: [Describe hazard in detail]

[CUSTOMIZE BASED ON TYPE OF HAZARD:]

Wet/Slippery Floor: A liquid substance was present on the floor creating a slippery surface. There were no warning signs or barriers in place.

Uneven Surface/Tripping Hazard: A [defect] created a tripping hazard.

Defective Stairs/Steps: The stairway at [location] was defective due to [describe defect].

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity] when [he/she] [describe the fall]:

[Detailed narrative]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS

A. Duty of Care

As a business invitee, our client was owed reasonable care to keep the premises reasonably safe and to warn of a dangerous condition that was not readily apparent and was actually or constructively known. Your insured also remained responsible for its own negligent creation of a hazard.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached this duty by:

1. Failure to Maintain Safe Premises:
   [Describe specific failures]

2. Actual or Constructive Knowledge:
   Your insured [created the hazardous condition / had actual knowledge of the condition / had constructive knowledge because the condition existed for a sufficient period that it should have been discovered].

C. The Condition Was Not Open and Obvious

The hazardous condition was not open and obvious because:

• [Explain why the hazard was not apparent]
• [Describe factors that concealed the danger]

D. Causation

The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and injuries.

E. Comparative Negligence Defense

Mississippi follows pure comparative negligence, allowing recovery even if the plaintiff bears some fault. However, our client was free from fault:

• [Evidence of due care by client]

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Immediate Injuries

Primary Diagnoses:

• [Injury 1]
• [Injury 2]
• [Injury 3]

B. Medical Treatment

Emergency Treatment:
[Details]

Subsequent Treatment:
[Details]

C. Current Status and Prognosis

[Current condition and prognosis]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Past Medical Expenses

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Non-Economic Damages

Note: Mississippi caps non-economic damages at $1,000,000 per plaintiff.

Our client has experienced:

• Physical pain and suffering
• Emotional distress
• Loss of enjoyment of life
• [Other non-economic damages]

E. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the liability of your insured, the severity of our client's injuries, and the damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [Expiration Date].

VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Complete medical records and bills
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of injuries
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment records and wage verification

IX. CONCLUSION

The enclosed evidence supports the liability and damages positions stated in this demand. We urge prompt resolution.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Mississippi Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

MISSISSIPPI-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Mississippi allows recovery regardless of plaintiff's percentage of fault (reduced by percentage of fault).

• Non-Economic Damage Cap: $1,000,000 per plaintiff under Miss. Code Ann. Section 11-1-60.

• Allocation: Section 85-5-7 generally imposes several liability in proportion to fault, but preserves joint and several liability for persons who consciously and deliberately pursue a common plan or actively participate in it.

• Punitive Damages: Section 11-1-65 imposes a clear-and-convincing standard, a separate punitive-damages phase, and net-worth-based statutory caps; apply the current cap tier and statutory exceptions to the particular defendant and claim.

• Venue: Section 11-11-3 generally uses the defendant's county of residence, a corporate defendant's principal place of business, or a county where a substantial alleged act, omission, or injury-causing event occurred; apply its additional party- and claim-specific provisions.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Miss. Code Ann. §§ 15-1-49 and 11-46-11 quoted in a 2026 official opinion
• Miss. Code Ann. § 11-7-15 quoted in an official opinion
• Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-60 applied in Womack
• Miss. Code Ann. § 11-1-65 applied in an official opinion
• Miss. Code Ann. § 11-46-11 applied in a 2026 official opinion
• 2026 S.B. 2360 (Tort Claims Board registry)
• Miss. Code Ann. § 85-5-7 quoted in an official opinion
• Miss. Code Ann. § 11-11-3 quoted in a 2025 official opinion
• Landry v. Vallman McComb Mall, LLC (official opinion)
• Vivians v. Baptist Healthplex (official opinion)
• Blanton v. Gardner's Supermarket, Inc. (official opinion)
• Womack v. Pilot Travel Centers, LLC (official opinion)
• Joiner v. City of Holly Springs (official opinion)
• Renner v. Retzer Resources, Inc. (official opinion)