Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - North Dakota

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

North Dakota Century Code Section 28-01-16(5) generally requires an action for injury to the person or rights of another to be commenced within six (6) years after the claim accrues, unless another rule applies. Accrual, tolling, defendant identity, and government status can change the deadline; counsel should calculate and calendar the claim-specific deadline rather than assume it runs automatically from the incident date.

For claims against political subdivisions: N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-12.1-10 requires an action under Chapter 32-12.1 to be commenced within three years after accrual. Section 32-12.1-04 identifies the political subdivision as the defendant for an employee's alleged negligence within the scope of employment; it does not create a 180-day notice deadline.

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under North Dakota Law

North Dakota has abolished the common-law distinction between invitees and licensees, but it retains a separate rule for trespassers. Under O'Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1977), and Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2024 ND 40, a landowner owes lawful entrants reasonable care under the circumstances.

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 less than the combined fault of all other persons who contributed to the injury. 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 the natural-accumulation rule. A landowner generally has no duty to remove or warn about naturally accumulated snow or ice. Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2024 ND 40, ¶¶ 4-8. The rule does not resolve every winter-condition claim: the Supreme Court has identified stairways attached to or next to buildings, artificial accumulations, and snow or ice concealing a separate danger unrelated to ordinary slipperiness as circumstances outside or limiting the rule. Id. ¶¶ 4, 6, 9.

[If ice/snow case:] Identify evidence showing that the condition was artificial, involved an attached stairway, concealed a separate danger, or otherwise falls outside the natural-accumulation rule before asserting a snow-or-ice breach.

E. Notice Requirements

Whether the landowner acted reasonably is fact-specific. Relevant evidence may include whether the owner created the condition, actually knew of it, should have discovered it through reasonable care, or had a reasonable opportunity to prevent injury to foreseeable lawful entrants.

Evidence supporting constructive knowledge may include:

• 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

Under Simmons v. Cudd Pressure Control, Inc., 2022 ND 20, ¶¶ 16-19, the duty to preserve relevant evidence arises when litigation is reasonably foreseeable. Sanctionable spoliation cannot occur before that duty exists, and any sanction or adverse inference depends on the court's fact-specific findings.

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:

1. Maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Discovering dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
3. Correcting dangerous conditions or providing adequate warning
4. 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, the available evidence supports that our client was exercising reasonable care:

• Our client was using the premises in a foreseeable manner
• The risk was not commonly known, already understood and appreciated, or 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

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity

D. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages

N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-03.2-04 recognizes noneconomic damages including pain, suffering, inconvenience, impairment, disfigurement, mental anguish, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment or companionship. No general compensatory cap is stated for an ordinary private premises claim, although government and claim-specific limits may apply. 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

Any recoverable economic-damages award may be subject to the post-award collateral-source procedure in N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-03.2-06. That provision excludes specified benefits, including insurance purchased by the person recovering damages, from its definition of collateral source.

VII. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS POLITICAL SUBDIVISION]

This claim involves a political subdivision (city, county, school district, etc.). Under N.D. Cent. Code Sections 32-12.1-04 and 32-12.1-10:

• The action is brought against the political subdivision for alleged negligence within an employee's scope of employment
• The action must be commenced within three years after accrual

Under N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-12.1-03, political-subdivision liability is limited to $500,000 per person and $2,000,000 for claims arising from a single occurrence as of July 1, 2026, and the political subdivision may not be held liable for punitive or exemplary damages. Immunities and other Chapter 32-12.1 requirements must also be evaluated.

VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the liability evidence described above, the severity of our client's injuries, and the 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].

If this matter is not resolved, our client may file in a North Dakota county permitted by N.D. Cent. Code Sections 28-04-04 and 28-04-05, after confirming the defendants' residence, entity status, and business contacts.

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 available evidence supports liability under North Dakota premises-liability law. Under the reasonable-care standard applied to lawful entrants in O'Leary v. Coenen and Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co., your insured failed to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition under the circumstances, causing our client's injuries.

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: Generally six years after accrual under N.D. Cent. Code Section 28-01-16(5), subject to claim-specific rules.

• Modified Comparative Fault: Recovery barred if plaintiff 50% or more at fault. N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-03.2-02.

• Duty Standard: Invitee/licensee distinction abolished; trespasser rule retained. Lawful entrants are owed reasonable care under the circumstances. O'Leary v. Coenen, 251 N.W.2d 746 (N.D. 1977).

• Political Subdivision Claims: Three-year action period, proper-defendant rules, immunities, and $500,000/$2,000,000 limits apply. N.D. Cent. Code Chapter 32-12.1.

• Snow/Ice: Natural-accumulation rule generally applies, subject to the claim-specific limits identified in Papenhausen, 2024 ND 40.

• Joint and Several Liability: Liability is generally several by percentage, with a joint-liability exception for concerted, aided, encouraged, ratified, or adopted tortious acts. N.D. Cent. Code Section 32-03.2-02.

• Damages: No general compensatory cap is stated for an ordinary private premises claim; government and claim-specific limits may apply. Section 32-03.2-06 may reduce an economic-damages award for qualifying collateral sources.

• Interest: Tort prejudgment interest is discretionary under Section 32-03-05; Section 32-03-04 governs damages certain or capable of calculation. Section 28-20-34 governs postjudgment interest, and the State Court Administrator lists the 2026 judgment rate as 10%.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 28-01
• North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 32-03.2
• North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 32-03
• North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 32-12.1
• North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 28-04
• North Dakota Century Code, Chapter 28-20
• Papenhausen v. ConocoPhillips Co., 2024 ND 40
• North Dakota Courts — Interest Rate on Judgments