Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Nevada

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), an action to recover damages for injury to a person generally must be commenced within two (2) years after the cause of action accrues. The incident occurred on [Date]. Counsel should determine the accrual date and any applicable tolling before entering an expiration date: [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. Recovery is barred when the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the negligence of the party or combined negligence of the parties against whom recovery is sought.

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

C. Nevada Premises Liability Standards

Reasonable-Care Standard:
Nevada land possessors generally owe entrants a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances. Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012). That duty may include reasonable inspection, maintenance, correction, or warning, depending on the facts.

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

Our client was lawfully on the premises. Any descriptive visitor status should be used as factual context, not as a substitute for Nevada's general reasonable-care analysis.

D. Nevada "Open and Obvious" Doctrine

An open and obvious condition does not automatically eliminate a Nevada land possessor's duty. Under Foster, obviousness bears on whether the possessor acted reasonably and on comparative fault; the inquiry includes whether the possessor should anticipate harm despite the condition's obviousness.

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's ordinary reasonable-care framework applies to natural as well as artificial conditions. Foster, 128 Nev. at 782, 291 P.3d at 156. For a snow-or-ice claim, relevant facts may include:

• 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. Recurring or Foreseeable Hazards

In Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320 (1993), evidence that produce debris continually fell to the floor supported constructive notice and a jury question about whether additional precautions were reasonable. Sprague does not categorically eliminate the notice inquiry for every self-service business.

[If applicable:] The recurring nature of [describe hazard], together with [inspection history / prior incidents / operating practices], supports actual or constructive notice and the need for reasonable additional precautions.

G. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

Nevada Tort Claims Act (Nev. Rev. Stat. Section 41.031 et seq.):
NRS 41.036 permits a tort claim to be filed within two years after accrual with the Attorney General for a claim against the State or with the governing body for a claim against a political subdivision. Under subsection 3, filing is not a condition precedent to suit. Separately, NRS 41.035 generally limits tort damages against the State, its agencies, and political subdivisions to $200,000, exclusive of postjudgment interest.

[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 distinguishes willful suppression from negligent loss of evidence. Willful suppression intended to harm another may trigger the rebuttable presumption in NRS 47.250(3); negligent loss after a preservation duty arises may support a permissible adverse inference or another appropriate sanction. 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 lawful entrant, our client was owed reasonable care under the circumstances. Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012).

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].

[If a recurring self-service hazard is supported by evidence:]

3. Recurring Hazard and Constructive Notice:
   Evidence that [describe recurring debris or spill condition] continually arose from your insured's operations supports constructive notice and the need for reasonable additional precautions under Sprague.

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

B. Future Medical Expenses

C. Lost Wages

D. Non-Economic Damages

Nevada has no general noneconomic-damages cap for an ordinary premises claim against a private defendant, although government and claim-specific limits may apply. 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 available evidence supports liability under Nevada law, subject to the complete factual record and any defenses. 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.

• Recurring Retail Hazards: Sprague v. Lucky Stores permits recurring-debris evidence to support constructive notice and the need for additional precautions; it does not automatically dispense with notice.

• Modified Comparative Negligence: The claimant's negligence must not be greater than the negligence of the party or combined negligence of the parties against whom recovery is sought.

• Compensatory Limits: No general compensatory cap applies to an ordinary premises claim against a private defendant, but NRS 41.035 caps covered government tort damages at $200,000 and other claim-specific limits may apply.

• Allocation: NRS 41.141 generally makes ordinary negligence defendants severally liable by percentage of fault, but subsection 5 preserves joint-and-several treatment for enumerated categories.

• Punitive Damages: NRS 42.005 requires clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud, or malice. The general cap is three times compensatory damages when compensatory damages are $100,000 or more, or $300,000 when compensatory damages are below $100,000, subject to statutory exceptions.

• Venue: Under NRS 13.040, ordinary actions generally are tried in a county where a defendant resides when the action begins; the statute supplies alternatives when no defendant resides in Nevada, residence is unknown, or a defendant is about to depart.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 11 — NRS 11.190(4)(e)
• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 41 — NRS 41.035, 41.036, and 41.141
• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 42 — NRS 42.005
• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 47 — NRS 47.250(3)
• Nevada Revised Statutes Chapter 13 — NRS 13.040
• Foster v. Costco Wholesale Corp., 128 Nev. 773, 291 P.3d 150 (2012)
• Sprague v. Lucky Stores, Inc., 109 Nev. 247, 849 P.2d 320 (1993)
• Bass-Davis v. Davis, 122 Nev. 442, 134 P.3d 103 (2006)