DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL
STATE OF NEVADA
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Nevada ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Nevada
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, Nevada. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement.
I. NEVADA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under Nevada Revised Statutes Section 11.190(4)(e), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims is two (2) years from the date of injury. This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].
Important: This is a relatively short limitations period. Prompt action is essential.
B. Nevada Comparative Negligence
Nevada follows modified comparative negligence under Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 41.141. A plaintiff's damages are reduced by their percentage of fault. However, a plaintiff whose negligence is greater than the combined negligence of all defendants is barred from recovery (i.e., plaintiff must be 50% or less at fault to recover).
Our client was exercising all reasonable care and bears no fault for this incident.
C. Nevada Premises Liability Standards
Sprague v. Lucky Stores Standard:
Nevada follows the approach set forth in Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320 (1993). A property owner owes a duty to invitees to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for use.
Elements of Premises Liability:
To establish liability, a plaintiff must prove:
1. The defendant owed a duty of care to the plaintiff
2. The defendant breached that duty
3. The breach was a legal cause of the plaintiff's injury
4. The plaintiff suffered damages
FGA, Inc. v. Giglio, 128 Nev. 271, 278 P.3d 490 (2012).
Traditional Classifications:
Nevada retains the traditional classifications:
- Invitees: Owed duty of reasonable care
- Licensees: Owed duty to warn of known dangers
- Trespassers: Owed duty to refrain from willful or wanton conduct
Our client was a business invitee, entitled to the highest duty of care.
D. Nevada "Open and Obvious" Doctrine
Nevada recognizes the open and obvious doctrine. A landowner generally has no duty to warn of hazards that are open and obvious. Gunlock v. New Frontier Hotel, 78 Nev. 182, 370 P.2d 682 (1962).
However, the doctrine does not apply when:
1. The condition is not actually open and obvious
2. The landowner should reasonably anticipate harm despite the obviousness
3. The invitee's attention was reasonably diverted
See Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012).
Here, the hazardous condition was NOT open and obvious because: [Explain].
E. Nevada Snow and Ice Liability
Note: Snow and ice are less common in Nevada's desert regions but occur in mountain areas (Reno, Lake Tahoe).
General Principles:
Nevada has not adopted a strict natural accumulation rule. Property owners owe a duty of reasonable care to address snow and ice hazards when they occur. Courts evaluate:
- The reasonableness of the property owner's response
- Whether the owner knew or should have known of the condition
- The foreseeability of the hazard
[If snow/ice case:] Your insured failed to exercise reasonable care in addressing the snow and ice accumulation at the subject premises.
F. Nevada's Mode of Operation Doctrine
Nevada has adopted the mode of operation doctrine for self-service retail establishments. Under Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320 (1993), if a business's method of operation makes it reasonably foreseeable that hazards will occur, the plaintiff need not prove actual or constructive notice. The plaintiff must show:
- The business operates in a mode that makes it foreseeable that hazardous conditions will arise
- The hazard was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of that mode of operation
- The defendant failed to take reasonable steps to prevent the hazard
[If applicable:] Your insured operated a self-service establishment where [describe mode of operation]. The hazard that caused our client's fall was a foreseeable consequence of this operation.
G. Notice Requirements for Government Claims
Nevada Tort Claims Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 41.031 et seq.):
Claims against Nevada governmental entities require compliance with specific notice requirements. Written notice must be filed within two (2) years of the injury. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 41.036.
[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
Nevada courts recognize spoliation of evidence claims and may impose sanctions, including adverse inference instructions. Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006).
III. STATEMENT OF FACTS
A. The Premises
The incident occurred at [Property Address], which is [describe property type] in [City], [County] County, Nevada. 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, cones, 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 a duty of reasonable care under Nevada law. Your insured was required to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320 (1993).
B. Breach of Duty
Your insured breached this duty by:
-
Failure to Maintain Safe Premises:
[Describe specific failures] -
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].
[If self-service establishment:]
3. Mode of Operation Liability:
Under Sprague, your insured's mode of operation made it reasonably foreseeable that hazards like the one causing our client's injury would occur. Specific notice is not required when the hazard is a foreseeable consequence of the business model.
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 any 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 Rejected
Our client was free from fault:
- [Evidence of due care by client]
- Our client had no reason to anticipate the hazard
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
| 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
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Non-Economic Damages
Nevada does not cap non-economic damages in personal injury cases. Our client has experienced:
- Physical pain and suffering
- Emotional distress
- Loss of enjoyment of life
- [Other non-economic damages]
E. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earnings | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
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 evidence establishes clear liability under Nevada law. Your insured failed to maintain safe premises and our client was injured as a direct result. We urge prompt resolution.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Nevada State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
File
NEVADA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES
-
Two-Year Statute of Limitations: Nevada has a relatively short limitations period. Act promptly.
-
Mode of Operation Doctrine: Sprague v. Lucky Stores (1993) eliminates the need to prove notice in self-service retail cases if the hazard was a foreseeable consequence of the mode of operation.
-
Modified Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff must be 50% or less at fault to recover.
-
No Damage Caps: Nevada does not cap economic or non-economic damages in personal injury cases (medical malpractice has caps).
-
Joint and Several Liability: Abolished in Nevada; each defendant liable only for their percentage of fault. Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 41.141.
-
Punitive Damages: Available with clear and convincing evidence. Capped at 3x compensatory damages if compensatory damages are $100,000 or more; $300,000 if less.
-
Offer of Judgment: Nev. R. Civ. P. 68 - important cost-shifting implications.
-
Venue: County where defendant resides or where cause of action arose.