Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Ohio

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

Ohio Revised Code § 2305.10(A) generally requires a bodily-injury action to be brought within two years after the cause of action accrues and generally treats accrual as the date the injury occurs, subject to the section's exceptions and other tolling or claim-specific rules. This incident occurred on [Date]; counsel must calculate the deadline from the actual accrual and tolling facts.

For claims against political subdivisions: R.C. 2744.04(A) generally imposes a two-year period or any applicable shorter Revised Code period. Section 2744.04(B) also requires a complaint to demand the damages found by the factfinder without specifying a monetary amount. Chapter 2744 immunity, defenses, and any claim-specific requirements must be analyzed before suit.

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Ohio Law

Ohio maintains the traditional common law classification of entrants:

Business Invitees: A shopkeeper ordinarily owes business invitees a duty of ordinary care in maintaining reasonably safe premises and a duty to warn of latent or hidden dangers. Paschal v. Rite Aid Pharmacy, Inc., 18 Ohio St. 3d 203 (1985); Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573, ¶ 5.

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: R.C. 2305.402 generally limits the duty to refraining from willful, wanton, or reckless conduct likely to cause injury, subject to the statute's peril, child-trespasser, and other provisions.

Our client was a business invitee because [describe the mutual-benefit purpose of the visit].

C. Modified Comparative Negligence

Ohio follows modified comparative negligence under Ohio Rev. Code § 2315.33. A plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff's fault is not greater than the combined tortious conduct of all other persons included by the statute, whether or not the plaintiff seeks recovery from each of them. Recovery is reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

Recovery is barred when the plaintiff's fault is greater than the combined tortious conduct of all other persons included by § 2315.33—commonly described as a greater-than-50% bar.

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-Ohio-2573, where a danger is open and obvious, a landowner owes no duty of care to persons lawfully on the premises. The inquiry is objective and condition-specific.

Ohio appellate courts consider attendant circumstances when deciding whether a condition was open and obvious, but attendant circumstances are not an automatic exception and ordinary distractions do not necessarily suffice. Trevis v. Shelbourne CP, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2407. Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St. 3d 120, 2009-Ohio-2495, also confirms that a claimed Ohio Basic Building Code violation does not itself prevent use of the doctrine.

[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. Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St. 3d 82, 1993-Ohio-72, holds that a homeowner has no common-law duty to remove, make less hazardous, or warn about natural accumulations of snow and ice on private walks. Ohio decisions apply a similar rule to business premises, subject to fact-specific limits.

Potential liability requires claim-specific proof, such as an unnatural accumulation caused or aggravated by human action or the owner's actual or implied notice that a natural accumulation created a condition substantially more dangerous than an invitee reasonably should anticipate. Lopatkovich v. City of Tiffin, 28 Ohio St. 3d 204 (1986). A snow-removal contract may affect responsibility among contracting parties but should not be described as a categorical tort exception without analyzing its terms and the claimant's theory.

[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 _______].

F. 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

This request is intended to identify potentially relevant material promptly. The availability and severity of any remedy for lost evidence depend on the governing preservation duty, the cause of the loss, prejudice, and applicable procedural law.

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 condition was not open and obvious because, viewed objectively and in context:

• The condition was not reasonably apparent to our client [explain]
• Attendant circumstances distracted our client's attention, including [describe]
• The following attendant circumstances materially reduced the time or opportunity to perceive the condition: [describe unusual circumstances]

Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573; Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St. 3d 120, 2009-Ohio-2495.

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, subject to a maximum of $350,000 per plaintiff and $500,000 per occurrence

Exceptions: Section 2315.18(B)(3) removes the noneconomic limit for (a) permanent and substantial physical deformity, loss of use of a limb, or loss of a bodily organ system, or (b) a permanent physical functional injury that permanently prevents independent self-care and performance of life-sustaining activities. [If applicable: The evidence supporting an exception is _______.]

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 or to remove obstructions from public roads, subject to the statutory defenses
• Negligence in proprietary functions
• Employee negligence causing injury within or on the grounds of a building used for a governmental function, where the injury is due to a physical defect there; detention facilities are excluded from this paragraph
• Liability expressly imposed by another Revised Code section, within § 2744.02(B)(5)'s limits

[Describe which exception applies and why]

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].

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 described above supports our client's position that the condition was created by your insured or was subject to actual or constructive notice, was not open and obvious in context, and caused the claimed injuries.

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: An open and obvious danger negates the landowner's duty; attendant circumstances bear on whether the condition was objectively open and obvious and are not an automatic exception. Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573.

• Natural Accumulation Rule: Generally no common-law duty to remove or warn of natural snow/ice accumulations; analyze unnatural accumulation and superior-knowledge evidence specifically. Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St. 3d 82, 1993-Ohio-72; Lopatkovich v. City of Tiffin, 28 Ohio St. 3d 204 (1986).

• Non-Economic Damage Caps: R.C. 2315.18 generally uses the greater of $250,000 or three times economic loss, capped at $350,000 per plaintiff and $500,000 per occurrence, with specified serious-injury exceptions.

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

• Allocation: Under R.C. 2307.22, noneconomic loss is generally several; a defendant assigned more than 50% can be jointly and severally liable for economic loss, and established intentional torts and other statutes create additional rules.

• Collateral Benefits: R.C. 2315.20 permits specified collateral-benefit evidence in ordinary tort actions but excludes sources with qualifying subrogation rights and specified life/disability payments. R.C. 2323.41 concerns medical and related professional claims, not this ordinary premises claim.

• Interest: R.C. 1343.03(B) generally provides postjudgment interest from judgment. Tort prejudgment interest under § 1343.03(C) requires a post-verdict good-faith-settlement determination and uses the statutory start-date rules; it is not automatically available from filing.

• Venue: Ohio Civ.R. 3(C) lists multiple proper counties, including defendant residence or principal place of business, defendant activity giving rise to the claim, and where all or part of the claim arose.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Ohio Revised Code §§ 2305.10, 2305.402, 2315.18, 2315.20, 2315.33, 2307.22, 2744.02, 2744.04, and 1343.03 — https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2305.10; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2305.402; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2315.18; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2315.20; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2315.33; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2307.22; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2744.02; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-2744.04; https://codes.ohio.gov/ohio-revised-code/section-1343.03
• Ohio Rules of Civil Procedure, Civ.R. 3 — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/docs/LegalResources/Rules/civil/CivilProcedure.pdf
• Armstrong v. Best Buy Co., 99 Ohio St. 3d 79, 2003-Ohio-2573 — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2003/2003-ohio-2573.pdf
• Lang v. Holly Hill Motel, Inc., 122 Ohio St. 3d 120, 2009-Ohio-2495 — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/2009/2009-ohio-2495.pdf
• Brinkman v. Ross, 68 Ohio St. 3d 82, 1993-Ohio-72 — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/0/1993/1993-ohio-72.pdf
• Wagner v. Athletico, Ltd., 2026-Ohio-888 (current application of premises notice rules) — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/5/2026/2026-Ohio-888.pdf
• Trevis v. Shelbourne CP, L.L.C., 2026-Ohio-2407 (current attendant-circumstances application) — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/8/2026/2026-Ohio-2407.pdf
• Allen v. USA Parking Systems, Inc., 2011-Ohio-6642 (application of Lopatkovich snow-and-ice rules) — https://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/7/2011/2011-ohio-6642.pdf