Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Oklahoma

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF OKLAHOMA

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

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

I. OKLAHOMA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Oklahoma Statutes title 12, Section 95(A)(3) generally requires an action for injury to another's rights to be brought within two (2) years after the claim accrues. Do not calculate a filing deadline from the incident date without confirming the governing accrual rule, tolling, party-specific provisions, and any shorter governmental-claim deadlines. [After review: The anticipated filing deadline is [Date] because ________.]

For claims against governmental entities: The Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act generally requires written notice within one (1) year after the loss, filed with the Office of the Risk Management Administrator for a State claim or the clerk of the governing body for a political-subdivision claim. Suit cannot begin until denial; a claim is generally deemed denied after ninety days, and suit generally must begin within 180 days after denial. Okla. Stat. tit. 51, Sections 156-157. [If applicable: Notice was received by [proper office] on [Date], denied on [Date], and the 180-day suit period expires on [Date].]

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Oklahoma Law

Oklahoma premises duties remain sensitive to the entrant's status. This demand is designed for a business invitee claim; use a different, specifically researched duty statement if the claimant was a licensee, trespasser, tenant, employee, or public-property user.

Business Invitees (highest duty): Property owners owe invitees a duty to exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of hidden dangers of which the owner knows or should know through reasonable inspection. Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Oklahoma City, 2014 OK 68.

The duty includes:

• Maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition
• Warning of latent or concealed perils
• Exercising reasonable care to discover dangerous conditions
• Making the premises reasonably safe or warning of the danger

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

C. Modified Comparative Negligence

Oklahoma follows modified comparative negligence under Okla. Stat. tit. 23, Sections 13-14. Recovery is barred only when the claimant's negligence is of greater degree than the negligence of the person causing the damage or the combined negligence of the persons causing the damage; otherwise, damages are reduced in proportion to the claimant's negligence.

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

Oklahoma follows the open and obvious doctrine. Under Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Oklahoma City, 2014 OK 68, a landowner generally has no duty to protect or warn an invitee against dangers that are open and obvious or that the invitee knows of or should know of through the exercise of ordinary care.

HOWEVER, Wood holds that the doctrine is not absolute. A duty may remain where the land possessor created or enhanced the hazard, knew the claimant would encounter it, and reasonably could foresee injury despite the claimant's awareness. The exception must be tied to the actual facts; Wood does not abolish the defense generally.

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

E. Snow and Ice Liability in Oklahoma

Oklahoma distinguishes natural weather accumulations from hazards created or increased by the land possessor. A possessor ordinarily is not liable for a readily apparent natural accumulation of ice or snow when no act of the possessor increased the natural hazard. Liability may remain fact-dependent where the possessor's drainage, sprinkler, removal work, or other conduct created or aggravated the ice. Krokowski v. Henderson National Corp., 1996 OK 57; Wood, 2014 OK 68.

[If ice/snow case:] The condition was not merely a natural accumulation because [a sprinkler / drain / refreezing runoff / removal activity / other conduct] created or increased the hazard as follows: [describe evidence].

F. Notice Requirements

Under Oklahoma 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 because the condition existed long enough that ordinary care required its discovery; OR
4. The owner's method of operation created a reasonable probability that the condition would occur, making notice of the specific item unnecessary on the supported facts.

Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Keef, 1966 OK 140, 416 P.2d 892; Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc., 1982 OK 44, 645 P.2d 485.

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

Oklahoma courts may impose remedies for a failure to preserve relevant evidence, but the remedy depends on the preservation duty, culpability, prejudice, and proportionality. Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100, 197 P.3d 12. This request does not assume that a particular sanction or adverse inference is automatic.

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: Snow and/or ice had accumulated at [location] and had not been properly cleared, salted, or remediated despite adequate time and opportunity to do so.

• 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 or not apparent]

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 Oklahoma Law

Under Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Oklahoma City, 2014 OK 68, [Property Owner Name] owed our client, a business invitee, the following duties:

1. To exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. To warn of hidden dangers of which the owner knows or should know
3. To make the premises reasonably safe or warn of the danger
4. To conduct reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions

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 Oklahoma law, constructive notice may be shown when a dangerous condition existed long enough that the owner, exercising ordinary care, should have discovered it. A claim based on the defendant's own creation of the condition or a supported method-of-operation theory requires separate analysis. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Keef, 1966 OK 140; Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc., 1982 OK 44.

[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]
• The hazard was hidden or concealed by [describe]
• The owner should have anticipated harm despite any obviousness

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

For bodily injuries occurring before September 1, 2025, the former Section 61.2 cap had been held unconstitutional and no replacement cap governed those injuries. For injuries occurring on or after September 1, 2025, Okla. Stat. tit. 23, Section 61.3 generally caps noneconomic damages at $500,000. The statute removes that limit for qualifying permanent and severe physical injury and for specified reckless, grossly negligent, fraudulent, intentional, or malicious conduct; it provides a $1,000,000 limit for a qualifying permanent mental injury. Economic damages are uncapped. Confirm the injury date and evidence before stating that an exception applies. 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 GOVERNMENT ENTITY]

This claim involves a governmental entity. We have complied with the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, Sections 151 et seq.:

• Written notice received within one year of loss per Section 156(B)
• Notice filed with [Office of the Risk Management Administrator / clerk of governing body] on [Date]
• Claim [denied / deemed denied] on [Date]; 180-day suit deadline under Section 157(B): [Date]

Liability Caps: Under the GTCA, liability is limited to:

• For claims on or after May 6, 2026, generally $250,000 per claimant for an ordinary non-property loss, or $375,000 for the State or a qualifying large city, county, or specified political subdivision
• $2,000,000 in the aggregate for claims arising from one occurrence
• No punitive or exemplary damages

Earlier losses may be governed by earlier limits. Confirm the loss date, entity, population category, any special medical limit, and current Section 154 before stating a cap.

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].

If settlement is not achieved, our client may file suit in an Oklahoma district court with proper venue. Venue depends on the defendant and claim: Sections 134, 137, and 139 govern common private-defendant situations, while Section 163 supplies GTCA venue. [After review: Venue is proper in [County] County under Section [____] because ________.]

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 available evidence supports liability under the claim-specific facts described above. [Before sending, identify the evidence supporting creation, notice, breach, causation, and the response to any open-and-obvious or comparative-negligence defense.]

I look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Oklahoma Bar Association No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

OKLAHOMA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Negligence: Recovery barred if plaintiff 51% or more at fault. Okla. Stat. tit. 23, Section 13.

• Open and Obvious Doctrine: The defense remains viable, but Wood treated a possessor-created icy hazard and a foreseeable required encounter as facts supporting a duty; it did not abolish the doctrine. Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Oklahoma City, 2014 OK 68.

• Notice Requirement: Analyze creation, actual notice, constructive notice, and any supported method-of-operation theory. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Keef, 1966 OK 140; Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc., 1982 OK 44.

• Governmental Tort Claims Act: One-year notice, denial prerequisite, 180-day post-denial suit period, special venue, and current Section 154 caps may apply. Okla. Stat. tit. 51, Sections 154, 156-157, 163.

• Bodily-Injury Damages Cap: For injuries on or after September 1, 2025, Section 61.3 generally caps noneconomic damages at $500,000, subject to its physical-injury, mental-injury, and misconduct exceptions. Economic damages remain uncapped.

• Several Liability: Section 15 generally makes liability several in civil fault actions not arising from contract; its text excepts actions brought by or on behalf of the State.

• Collateral Sources: Do not cite the medical-liability-only rule in Okla. Stat. tit. 63, Section 1-1708.1D for an ordinary premises claim; determine admissibility and setoff under the authorities applicable to the pleaded claim.

• Prejudgment Interest: For a qualifying personal-injury verdict, Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Section 727.1(E) generally starts prejudgment interest 24 months after suit begins; governmental verdicts follow the different rule in subsection (F).

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Oklahoma Legislature, current Title 12: https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os12.pdf
• Oklahoma Legislature, current Title 23: https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os23.pdf
• Oklahoma Legislature, current Title 51: https://www.oklegislature.gov/OK_Statutes/CompleteTitles/os51.pdf
• 2026 Oklahoma Session Laws ch. 217, Section 74 (current Section 154): https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/DeliverDocument.asp?CiteID=551530
• Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Oklahoma City, 2014 OK 68: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=2014+OK+68
• Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Keef, 1966 OK 140: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=1966+OK+140
• Lingerfelt v. Winn-Dixie Texas, Inc., 1982 OK 44: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=1982+OK+44
• Krokowski v. Henderson National Corp., 1996 OK 57: https://www.oscn.net/applications/oscn/deliverdocument.asp?cite=1996+OK+57
• Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100: https://www.oscn.net/applications/OCISWeb/deliverdocument.asp?citeid=454186