DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF OHIO

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

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

I. OHIO-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Ohio Revised Code Section 2305.10, the statute of limitations for personal injury claims, including premises liability, is two (2) 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 Ohio Rev. Code Section 2744.04, written notice is not required as a condition precedent to suit. However, the statute of limitations remains two years, and immunity defenses under Chapter 2744 must be considered.

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Ohio Law

Ohio maintains the traditional common law classification of entrants:

Business Invitees (highest duty): Property owners owe invitees a duty to exercise ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of latent or hidden dangers of which the owner knows or should know. Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St. 3d 203 (1985).

The duty includes:
- A duty to exercise ordinary care and keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- A duty to warn invitees of latent or hidden dangers
- A duty to inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions
- A duty to take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers

Licensees: Property owners owe a duty not to injure licensees by willful or wanton conduct and to warn of known latent dangers.

Trespassers: Property owners owe only a duty to refrain from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct.

Our client was a business invitee entitled to the highest duty of care.

C. Modified Comparative Negligence

Ohio follows modified comparative negligence under Ohio Rev. Code Section 2315.33. A plaintiff may recover damages only if the plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the combined negligence of all defendants. Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

Under the 51% bar rule, a plaintiff who is 51% or more at fault is completely barred from recovery.

Our client bears no responsibility for this incident.

D. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Ohio follows the open and obvious doctrine. Under Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79 (2003), a premises owner owes no duty to warn invitees of open and obvious dangers. A condition is open and obvious when it is reasonably apparent to the person.

HOWEVER, this doctrine does not apply when:
- Attendant circumstances exist that distract the invitee's attention
- The owner should anticipate the harm despite the obvious nature of the condition
- The condition involves an unreasonable risk despite being obvious

See Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St. 3d 120 (2009).

[The hazardous condition in this case was NOT open and obvious because: describe why]

E. Snow and Ice Liability in Ohio

Ohio generally follows the natural accumulation rule. Under Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St. 3d 82 (1993), property owners are not liable for injuries caused by the natural accumulation of ice and snow.

EXCEPTIONS to the natural accumulation rule:
- Unnatural accumulations caused by the property owner's actions
- The owner's negligence in snow removal efforts creates an additional hazard
- Business necessity - if business operations require exposure to the hazard
- Contractual duty - if a lease or contract creates a duty to remove

See Lopatkovich v. City of Tiffin, 28 Ohio St. 3d 204 (1986).

[If ice/snow case:] The hazardous condition at issue was [an unnatural accumulation / created by defendant's negligent snow removal / subject to the business necessity exception because _______].

E. Notice Requirements

Under Ohio law, to establish liability, a plaintiff must prove:

1. The owner created the dangerous condition; OR
2. The owner had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition; OR
3. The owner had constructive knowledge - the condition existed for a sufficient time that the owner should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584 (1943).

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

Ohio courts impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions and, in egregious cases, default judgment. Drawl v. Cornicelli, 124 Ohio App. 3d 562 (1997).

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 invitees 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: [An unnatural accumulation of / Conditions created by defendant's snow removal efforts causing] ice had developed at [location].

• 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.

The hazardous condition was NOT open and obvious because: [explain why the condition was hidden, not apparent, or attendant circumstances prevented discovery]

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 Ohio Law

Under Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St. 3d 203 (1985), [Property Owner Name] owed our client, a business invitee, the following duties:

1. To exercise ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. To warn of latent or hidden dangers of which the owner knows or should know
3. To inspect the premises to discover possible dangerous conditions
4. To take reasonable precautions to protect invitees from foreseeable dangers

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:
Under Ohio law, constructive notice exists when a dangerous condition has existed for such a length of time that the owner, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered it. Johnson v. Wagner Provision Co., 141 Ohio St. 584 (1943).

[Include evidence of constructive notice]

C. Open and Obvious Doctrine - Inapplicable

The open and obvious doctrine does not apply because:

• The condition was not reasonably apparent to our client [explain]
• Attendant circumstances distracted our client's attention, including [describe]
• The owner should have anticipated harm despite any obviousness due to [explain]

Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St. 3d 120 (2009).

D. Causation

The dangerous condition described above was the proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries.

E. Comparative Fault Defense

Our client was exercising reasonable care and is not comparatively at fault:

• Our client was using the premises in a foreseeable manner
• Our client was paying reasonable attention to surroundings
• The hazard was not open and obvious

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

IMPORTANT - OHIO DAMAGE CAPS:

Under Ohio Rev. Code Section 2315.18, non-economic damages are capped at the greater of:
- $250,000; OR
- Three times economic damages up to a maximum of $350,000 per plaintiff

Exception: The cap does not apply if the plaintiff suffered permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ. [If applicable: Our client's injuries qualify for this exception because _______.]

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

VII. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS

[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS POLITICAL SUBDIVISION]

Ohio Rev. Code Chapter 2744 governs political subdivision liability:

General Rule: Political subdivisions are generally immune from liability.

Exceptions (O.R.C. Section 2744.02(B)):
- Negligent operation of motor vehicles by employees
- Negligent failure to keep public roads in repair and free of nuisance
- Negligence in proprietary functions
- Negligence in connection with public grounds, buildings, or facilities (expressly maintained for public use)

[Describe which exception applies and why]

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 Court of Common Pleas, [County] County, Ohio.

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 Ohio premises liability law. The dangerous condition was either created by your insured, was known to your insured, or existed for a sufficient time that it should have been discovered and remediated. The condition was not open and obvious, and our client was exercising reasonable care.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Ohio Supreme Court Registration No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

OHIO-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Negligence: Recovery barred if plaintiff 51% or more at fault. O.R.C. Section 2315.33.

• Open and Obvious Doctrine: No duty to warn of open and obvious hazards, but attendant circumstances exception applies. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79 (2003).

• Natural Accumulation Rule: Generally no liability for natural snow/ice accumulation. Exceptions for unnatural accumulations and negligent removal. Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St. 3d 82 (1993).

• Non-Economic Damage Caps: $250,000 or 3x economic damages (max $350,000) per plaintiff. Exception for catastrophic injuries. O.R.C. Section 2315.18.

• Political Subdivision Immunity: Broad immunity with specific exceptions. O.R.C. Chapter 2744.

• Joint and Several Liability: Abolished except for intentional torts. O.R.C. Section 2307.22.

• Collateral Source Rule: Modified; evidence of collateral source payments admissible. O.R.C. Section 2323.41.

• Prejudgment Interest: Available at statutory rate from filing. O.R.C. Section 1343.03.