DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL
STATE OF NORTH DAKOTA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, North Dakota ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of North Dakota
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]
Property Manager: [Management Company Name, if applicable]
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 [County] County, North Dakota. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement and provides a comprehensive analysis of liability under North Dakota law, our client's injuries, and damages.
I. NORTH DAKOTA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under North Dakota Century Code Section 28-01-16, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including premises liability, is six (6) years from the date of injury. This incident occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
For claims against political subdivisions: Under N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-12.1-04, written notice must be provided within 180 days of the occurrence giving rise to the claim. [If applicable: We have complied with this requirement by providing notice on [Date].]
B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under North Dakota Law
North Dakota has abolished the common law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers for adult entrants. Under O'Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1977), North Dakota applies a uniform standard of reasonable care to all lawful entrants.
Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances to all persons lawfully on the premises. The status of the entrant (invitee, licensee) is relevant only as one factor in determining the applicable standard of care.
This duty includes:
- Maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Discovering and correcting or warning of dangerous conditions
- Conducting reasonable inspections
C. Modified Comparative Fault
North Dakota follows modified comparative fault under N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-03.2-02. A plaintiff may recover damages only if the plaintiff's fault is not greater than the combined fault of all defendants. Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.
Under the 50% bar rule, a plaintiff who is 50% or more at fault is barred from recovery.
Our client bears no responsibility for this incident.
D. Snow and Ice Liability in North Dakota
North Dakota applies a reasonableness standard to snow and ice cases, considering the climate and conditions prevalent in the state. Property owners must exercise reasonable care in addressing snow and ice hazards, taking into account:
- The timing and nature of the weather event
- The time elapsed since the precipitation
- The foreseeability of the hazard
- The steps taken to address the condition
See Halvorson v. City of Williston, 2015 ND 98.
North Dakota does not follow a strict "natural accumulation" rule that would automatically immunize property owners.
[If ice/snow case:] The hazardous ice/snow condition at issue was known or should have been known to the defendant, who failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances.
E. Notice Requirements
Under North Dakota law, a plaintiff must establish that the property owner had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition, or that the condition was created by the property owner.
Constructive notice exists when:
- The condition existed for a sufficient time that it should have been discovered
- A reasonable inspection program would have revealed the hazard
II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE
YOU ARE HEREBY DIRECTED TO IMMEDIATELY PRESERVE ALL EVIDENCE relating to this incident and the subject premises, including but not limited to:
- All surveillance video footage from the date of incident (interior and exterior cameras)
- Surveillance footage from 48 hours before and after the incident
- Incident/accident reports prepared by employees or management
- Witness statements taken at the time of incident
- Maintenance logs and repair records for the area of the fall
- Inspection records and checklists for the date of incident and prior 12 months
- Cleaning schedules and logs
- Weather records and reports from the date of incident
- Prior complaints regarding the hazardous condition
- Prior incidents or falls at the same or similar location
- Work orders and maintenance requests for the area
- Photographs of the incident location
- Written policies and procedures for maintenance, inspection, and safety
- Training records for employees responsible for premises safety
- All communications regarding the incident
- Insurance policies applicable to this claim
North Dakota courts may impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions.
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Premises
The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type - e.g., "a retail shopping center," "a grocery store," "a restaurant," "an apartment complex," "an office building," "a hotel," etc.]. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, possessed, maintained, and/or controlled the subject premises.
[If property manager involved:]
[Management Company Name] was responsible for the day-to-day management, maintenance, inspection, and safety of the premises.
B. The Hazardous Condition
On the date of the incident, a dangerous and hazardous condition existed on the premises, specifically: [Describe the hazardous condition in detail]
[CUSTOMIZE BASED ON TYPE OF HAZARD:]
-
Wet/Slippery Floor: A liquid substance [water / spilled merchandise / cleaning solution / grease] was present on the floor in the [specific location], creating an extremely slippery and dangerous walking surface. There were no warning signs, cones, or barriers in place to alert persons to this hazard.
-
Uneven Walking Surface: A raised or uneven section of [flooring / sidewalk / parking lot / threshold / carpet] created a tripping hazard. The elevation change was [describe height differential] and was not marked, repaired, or remediated.
-
Snow/Ice Accumulation: Snow and/or ice had accumulated at [location] and had not been properly cleared, salted, or remediated despite adequate time and opportunity to do so.
-
Defective Stairs/Steps: The [stairway / steps] at [location] were defective and dangerous due to [describe defect].
-
Inadequate Lighting: The [location] was inadequately lit, obscuring the hazardous condition.
C. The Incident
On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe what client was doing] when [describe the fall]:
[Detailed narrative of the incident]
D. Response to the Incident
[Describe what happened after the fall]
IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS
A. Duty of Care Under North Dakota Law
Under O'Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1977), [Property Owner Name] owed our client a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances, which includes:
- Maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Discovering dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
- Correcting dangerous conditions or providing adequate warning
- Exercising reasonable care to protect all lawful entrants
B. Breach of Duty
Your insured breached these duties by:
1. Created the Condition:
[If defendant created the condition - describe]
2. Actual Notice:
[If evidence of actual knowledge - describe]
3. Constructive Notice:
The dangerous condition existed for such a length of time that the defendant, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered and remediated it.
[Include evidence of constructive notice]
4. Failure to Inspect:
Your insured failed to conduct reasonable inspections that would have revealed the dangerous condition.
C. Causation
The dangerous condition described above was the actual and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries under North Dakota law.
D. Comparative Fault Defense
While North Dakota applies modified comparative fault, our client was exercising reasonable care:
- Our client was using the premises in a foreseeable manner
- The hazard was not open and obvious
- Our client had no reason to anticipate the dangerous condition
V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT
A. Summary of Injuries
As a direct and proximate result of the fall, our client sustained the following injuries:
[List primary diagnoses]
B. Treatment Chronology
Emergency Care - [Date]:
[Details]
Surgical Intervention (If Applicable):
[Details]
Follow-Up Care:
[Details]
Physical Therapy/Rehabilitation:
[Details]
C. Current Status and Prognosis
[Describe current condition and prognosis]
VI. DAMAGES
A. Past Medical Expenses
| Provider | Service Dates | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Date] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Future Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| [Treatment] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages
North Dakota permits full recovery for pain and suffering in premises liability cases. There are no caps on non-economic damages. Our client has suffered and continues to suffer:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- [Additional non-economic damages]
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS
[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS POLITICAL SUBDIVISION]
This claim involves a political subdivision (city, county, school district, etc.). We have complied with N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-12.1-04:
- Written notice provided within 180 days of the occurrence
- Notice served on [Entity Name] on [Date]
Political subdivisions in North Dakota have limited liability under N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 32-12.1, with liability capped at $250,000 per person and $1,000,000 per occurrence.
VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
A. Demand Amount
Based upon the clear liability of your insured, the severity of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand the sum of:
$[DEMAND AMOUNT]
B. Time for Response
This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, through and including [Expiration Date].
Failure to respond or failure to make a reasonable offer will result in immediate filing of suit in the District Court of [County] County, North Dakota.
IX. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED
- Complete medical records from all treating providers
- Itemized medical bills
- Photographs of the incident location
- Photographs of injuries
- Incident report (if obtained)
- Employment records and wage verification
- Weather records (if applicable)
- HIPAA authorizations
X. CONCLUSION
The evidence in this case establishes clear and indisputable liability under North Dakota premises liability law. Under the uniform duty of reasonable care established in O'Leary v. Coenen, your insured failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Our client, who was lawfully on the premises and exercising reasonable care, was seriously injured as a direct result.
I look forward to your prompt response.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
North Dakota State Bar ID No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: [List]
cc: [Client Name]
[File]
NORTH DAKOTA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
-
Six-Year Statute of Limitations: One of the longest in the nation. N.D. Cent. Code Section 28-01-16.
-
Modified Comparative Fault: Recovery barred if plaintiff 50% or more at fault. N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-03.2-02.
-
Unified Duty Standard: No invitee/licensee distinction for adults. All owed duty of reasonable care. O'Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1977).
-
Political Subdivision Claims: 180-day notice required. Liability caps apply. N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 32-12.1.
-
Snow/Ice: Reasonableness standard applies; no strict natural accumulation rule.
-
Joint and Several Liability: Generally abolished; defendants liable for their percentage share. N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-03.2-02.
-
No Damage Caps: North Dakota does not cap compensatory damages in ordinary negligence cases.
-
Prejudgment Interest: Available at 12% from date of judgment. N.D. Cent. Code Section 28-20-34.