Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - New Mexico

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF NEW MEXICO

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

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, New Mexico. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement and provides a comprehensive analysis of liability under New Mexico law, our client's injuries, and damages.

I. NEW MEXICO-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8 provides a three-year period for an injury to the person. Accrual, discovery, tolling, and claim characterization can alter the calculation. Counsel calculates the filing deadline as [Expiration Date] because [Explain injury/accrual date and any discovery or tolling issue].

For claims under the Tort Claims Act: NMSA 1978, § 41-4-16 generally requires written notice to the statutorily designated recipient within ninety (90) days after the occurrence, subject to the statute's actual-notice, incapacity, and wrongful-death provisions. Section 41-4-15 generally requires suit within two years after the occurrence resulting in loss, injury, or death. [If applicable: Notice was presented to [Statutory Recipient] on [Date].]

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under New Mexico Law

New Mexico applies ordinary negligence principles to visitors. Ford v. Board of County Commissioners, 1994-NMSC-077, 118 N.M. 134, eliminated the invitee-licensee distinction but expressly retained separate rules for trespassers. Current UJI 13-1318 provides that an owner or occupant owes a visitor ordinary care to keep the premises safe for the visitor's use.

An owner or occupant owes a visitor ordinary care to keep the premises safe for the visitor's use. Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., 1992-NMSC-008, 113 N.M. 153; UJI 13-1318 NMRA.

This duty includes:

• Discovering dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
• Correcting or warning of dangerous conditions
• Maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition

C. Pure Comparative Negligence

New Mexico follows pure comparative negligence under Scott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021, 96 N.M. 682. A plaintiff's negligence reduces recovery in proportion to fault rather than operating as a complete bar.

Our client bears no responsibility for this incident.

D. Snow and Ice Liability in New Mexico

Snow and ice claims are governed by the ordinary-care standard in current UJI 13-1318. The issue is whether the owner or occupant exercised ordinary care under the circumstances, including reasonable inspection and any creation of the condition.

The analysis focuses on whether the property owner exercised reasonable care under all circumstances, including:

• The nature and extent of the accumulation
• Time elapsed since the weather event
• The owner's knowledge of the condition
• Whether reasonable steps were taken to address the hazard

[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 to protect invitees.

E. Knowledge and Inspection

Current UJI 13-1318 states that, when supported by the evidence, an owner or occupant may be charged with knowledge of a condition that a reasonable inspection would have disclosed or that the owner, occupant, or an employee caused. An obvious condition does not by itself eliminate the ordinary-care duty.

Evidence supporting charged 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
• The hazard was a foreseeable result of the property owner's operations

II. PRESERVATION OF EVIDENCE - LITIGATION HOLD NOTICE

PLEASE 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

New Mexico recognizes a distinct tort for intentional destruction, mutilation, or significant alteration of potential evidence for the purpose of defeating another person's recovery. It does not recognize negligent spoliation as an independent tort, and an evidence-preservation duty based on negligence requires an agreement, statute, voluntary undertaking, or other special circumstance. Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc., 1995-NMSC-063, 120 N.M. 645. Please preserve the listed material, which is relevant to this claim.

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 following the precipitation event.

• 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 New Mexico Law

Under Ford v. Board of County Commissioners, 1994-NMSC-077, and Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp., 1992-NMSC-008, [Property Owner Name] owed our client a duty of ordinary care to:

1. Maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Discover dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
3. Correct dangerous conditions or warn of their existence
4. Exercise reasonable care to protect all foreseeable entrants

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached these duties by:

1. Actual Knowledge:
[If evidence of actual knowledge - describe]

2. Constructive Knowledge:
Under current UJI 13-1318, the owner or occupant may be charged with knowledge if a reasonable inspection would have disclosed the condition. The supporting inspection, duration, recurrence, and creation evidence is: [Describe].

[Include evidence of constructive notice]

3. 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 New Mexico law.

D. Comparative Fault Defense

While New Mexico applies pure comparative negligence, our client was exercising reasonable care:

• Our client was using the premises in a foreseeable manner
• Whether the hazard was obvious is fact-sensitive and does not by itself eliminate the ordinary-care duty under UJI 13-1318
• 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

Subject to claim-specific statutory restrictions, including the Tort Claims Act when applicable, our client's non-economic losses include:

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

E. Summary of Damages

VII. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

This claim involves a [municipal / county / state] governmental entity. We have complied with the New Mexico Tort Claims Act:

• Written notice stating the time, place, and circumstances was presented on [Date] to [risk management division / mayor / school superintendent / county clerk / administrative head], as specified by NMSA 1978, § 41-4-16
• Suit will be filed within the period in NMSA 1978, § 41-4-15

The specific waiver asserted is [§ 41-4-6 for negligence in the operation or maintenance of a building, public park, machinery, equipment, or furnishings / § 41-4-11 for qualifying negligence concerning highways and streets / other exact waiver]. Any recovery is subject to § 41-4-19's limits and prohibition on punitive damages and prejudgment interest.

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, New Mexico.

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 New Mexico premises liability law. Under the uniform duty of reasonable care established in Ford v. Board of County Commissioners, 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]
New Mexico State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

NEW MEXICO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff's fault proportionally reduces recovery rather than completely barring it. Scott v. Rizzo, 1981-NMSC-021.

• Visitor Duty: Invitees and licensees are governed by ordinary care; trespassers remain a separate category. Ford v. Board of County Commissioners, 1994-NMSC-077; UJI 13-1318 NMRA.

• Tort Claims Act: Section 41-4-16 generally requires 90-day written notice to a designated recipient, with statutory alternatives and exceptions; § 41-4-15 generally imposes a two-year suit deadline.

• Several Liability: Generally applies in comparative-fault actions, subject to § 41-3A-1's express joint-liability exceptions.

• Damage Limits: Evaluate claim-specific statutes; Tort Claims Act claims are capped by § 41-4-19.

• Government Interest Restriction: Section 41-4-19 bars prejudgment interest on Tort Claims Act judgments.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Current New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 — Chapter 37
• Current New Mexico Statutes Annotated 1978 — Chapter 41
• UJI 13-1318 NMRA — Slip and Fall, effective December 31, 2025
• NMSA 1978, § 37-1-8
• NMSA 1978, § 41-3A-1
• NMSA 1978, § 41-4-6
• NMSA 1978, § 41-4-11
• NMSA 1978, § 41-4-15
• NMSA 1978, § 41-4-16
• NMSA 1978, § 41-4-19
• Ford v. Board of County Commissioners
• Klopp v. Wackenhut Corp.
• Scott v. Rizzo
• Coleman v. Eddy Potash, Inc.