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

Under Oklahoma Statutes title 12, Section 95(A)(3), 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 governmental entities: Under the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act, Okla. Stat. tit. 51, Section 156(B), written notice must be provided within one (1) year of the loss. [If applicable: We have complied with this requirement by providing notice on [Date].]

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Oklahoma Law

Oklahoma maintains the traditional common law classification of entrants as adopted from the Restatement (Second) of Torts:

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

Licensees: Property owners owe a duty to refrain from willfully or wantonly injuring and to warn of known hidden dangers.

Trespassers: Property owners owe only a duty to refrain from willful or wanton injury.

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, Section 13. 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

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, liability may still attach when:
- The possessor should anticipate the harm despite the obvious nature
- The owner's conduct involves an unreasonable risk
- The risk of harm remains unreasonable despite the obviousness

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

E. Snow and Ice Liability in Oklahoma

Oklahoma follows a reasonableness standard for snow and ice liability. Property owners must exercise reasonable care under the circumstances to protect invitees from ice and snow hazards.

Oklahoma does not strictly follow the "natural accumulation" rule. The analysis focuses on whether the property owner exercised reasonable care given:
- Knowledge of the condition
- Time elapsed since the weather event
- Foreseeable risk to invitees
- Steps taken to address the hazard

[If ice/snow case:] The hazardous condition at issue was known or should have been known to the defendant, who failed to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees.

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 - the condition existed for a sufficient time that the owner should have discovered it through reasonable inspection. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Keef, 1962 OK 55.

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 impose sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions. Barnett v. Simmons, 2008 OK 100.

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 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. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Keef, 1962 OK 55.

[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

Oklahoma permits full recovery for pain and suffering in premises liability cases. There are no caps on non-economic damages. 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 provided within one year of loss per Section 156(B)
• Notice served on [Entity Name] on [Date]

Liability Caps: Under the GTCA, liability is limited to:
- $175,000 per person / $1,000,000 per occurrence for claims arising before November 1, 2022
- $200,000 per person for claims arising on or after November 1, 2022 (adjusted periodically)

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 District Court of [County] County, Oklahoma.

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 Oklahoma 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]
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: No duty to warn of open and obvious hazards, but exceptions apply when harm should be anticipated. Wood v. Mercedes-Benz of Oklahoma City, 2014 OK 68.

• Notice Requirement: Must prove defendant created condition, had actual notice, or had constructive notice. Safeway Stores, Inc. v. Keef, 1962 OK 55.

• Governmental Tort Claims Act: One-year notice requirement. Liability caps apply. Okla. Stat. tit. 51, Sections 151 et seq.

• No Damage Caps: Oklahoma does not cap compensatory damages in ordinary negligence cases (except governmental claims).

• Joint and Several Liability: Abolished; defendants liable only for their percentage share. Okla. Stat. tit. 23, Section 15.

• Collateral Source Rule: Modified; collateral sources may reduce recovery. Okla. Stat. tit. 63, Section 1-1708.1D.

• Prejudgment Interest: Available at rate set by statute. Okla. Stat. tit. 12, Section 727.