Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Oregon

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF OREGON

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

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

I. OREGON-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Oregon Revised Statutes Section 12.110(1) generally requires an action for injury to the person or rights of another, not arising on contract and not otherwise enumerated, to be commenced within two (2) years. Accrual, discovery, tolling, repose, defendant identity, and claim-specific statutes can affect the deadline. Counsel should calculate and independently confirm the filing deadline for this claim rather than relying solely on the incident date.

For claims against public bodies: ORS 30.275 generally requires notice within 180 days after the alleged loss or injury, or within one year for wrongful death. The statute recognizes formal notice, actual notice, and commencement of an action as specified methods; formal notice must contain the required claim information and be delivered to the statutory recipient. An OTCA action generally must be commenced within two years after the alleged loss or injury. [If applicable: Identify the notice method, recipient, delivery date, and proof of delivery here.]

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Oregon Law

Oregon premises duties remain sensitive to the entrant's status and the defendant's possession or control of the area. For a business invitee, Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or. 548, 557-58, 687 P.2d 144 (1984), states that a possessor must use reasonable care to make the premises reasonably safe for the visit, discover conditions creating an unreasonable risk, and eliminate the condition or adequately warn foreseeable invitees. The invitee must also use reasonable care; the obviousness of a danger and the parties' ability to avoid it are considered in determining and comparing fault, rather than being framed as an automatic bar to liability.

C. Modified Comparative Fault

Oregon follows modified comparative fault under ORS 31.600. A plaintiff may recover only if the plaintiff's fault is not greater than the combined fault of the persons included in the statute's comparison: liable defendants, liable third-party defendants, and persons with whom the plaintiff settled. 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. Snow and Ice Conditions

Do not assume that a categorical "natural accumulation" rule resolves an Oregon snow-or-ice claim. Analyze the particular condition under the ordinary invitee reasonable-care standard, including:

• The nature and severity of the conditions
• The time elapsed since the weather event
• The feasibility of remediation
• Whether the hazard was foreseeable

[If ice/snow case:] State the evidence showing why the particular condition, timing, location, notice, and available precautions made the defendant's conduct unreasonable.

E. Notice Requirements

Under Oregon 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, through reasonable inspection and care, should have discovered the condition and addressed the unreasonable risk. See Woolston, 297 Or. at 557-58. In a foreign-substance case, evidence about how the condition arose and how long it existed may be material. Compare Pribble v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 249 Or. 184, 437 P.2d 745 (1968), with Diller v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 274 Or. 735, 548 P.2d 1304 (1976).

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

OEC 311(1)(c), codified at ORS 40.135(1)(c), provides a rebuttable evidentiary presumption that evidence willfully suppressed would be adverse to the suppressing party. The availability and scope of any evidentiary remedy depends on the facts and the court's rulings.

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.

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 Oregon Law

Under Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or. 548 (1984), [Property Owner Name], as possessor or controller of the relevant area, owed our client, a business invitee, duties of reasonable care that included:

1. To keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. To discover unreasonably dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
3. To repair or warn of known dangerous conditions
4. To use reasonable care in light of foreseeable risks of harm

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:
The available evidence supports a finding that, through reasonable inspection and care, your insured should have discovered the condition and addressed the unreasonable risk. The condition's origin, duration, visibility, recurrence, location, and the adequacy of inspection practices must be evaluated on the actual facts. See Woolston, 297 Or. at 557-58; Pribble, 249 Or. 184; Diller, 274 Or. 735.

[Include evidence of constructive notice]

4. Failure to Inspect:
Your insured failed to conduct reasonable inspections that would have revealed the dangerous condition.

C. Causation

The dangerous condition described above factually caused our client's fall and resulting injuries. The injuries were within the foreseeable risks created by the defendant's conduct.

D. 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 - OREGON NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGE CAP STATUS:

The former $500,000 non-economic damage cap under ORS 31.710 was held unconstitutional as applied to a surviving plaintiff's common-law personal-injury claim in Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc., 366 Or. 628, 468 P.3d 419 (2020). The Legislature then amended ORS 31.710 (2021 Or. Laws ch. 478, § 1) so the cap now applies by its terms only to wrongful-death claims. Accordingly, ORS 31.710 does not cap noneconomic damages in this ordinary surviving personal-injury claim. Counsel must separately evaluate any claim-specific limit, including the Oregon Tort Claims Act.

Note: ORS 31.710(1) now caps non-economic damages ($500,000, flat — no inflation adjustment) only in wrongful death claims.

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 PUBLIC BODY]

This claim involves a public body. We have evaluated the Oregon Tort Claims Act, ORS 30.260 to 30.300:

• Notice method: [formal notice / actual notice / commencement of action]
• Statutory recipient: [Oregon Attorney General for a State claim / principal administrative office or designated official for a local public body]
• Notice delivered or action commenced on [Date]
• Required content and proof of delivery: [Describe]
• Two-year OTCA action deadline independently calendared: [Date]

Current liability limits: For causes of action arising from July 1, 2026 through June 30, 2027, the Oregon Judicial Department lists the following adjusted limits under ORS 30.271 to 30.273:

• State personal injury/death: $2,708,100 for a single claimant; $5,416,200 for multiple claimants
• Local public body personal injury/death: $902,700 for a single claimant; $1,805,300 for multiple claimants
• State or local property damage: $148,100 for a single claimant; $740,300 for multiple claimants

Confirm the applicable table for the date the cause of action arose and determine whether the defendant is the State or a local public body.

VIII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

A. Demand Amount

Based upon the liability evidence described above, the severity of our client's injuries, and the documented 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 Circuit Court of the State of Oregon for [County] County.

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 supports liability under Oregon premises law. Based on the facts stated above, the dangerous condition was created by your insured, actually known to your insured, or discoverable through reasonable inspection and care. Our client was lawfully on the premises, exercised reasonable care, and sustained the documented injuries as a result of the condition.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Oregon State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

OREGON-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Fault: Recovery barred if plaintiff 51% or more at fault. Or. Rev. Stat. Section 31.600.

• Non-Economic Damage Cap: ORS 31.710 cap held unconstitutional as applied to common-law PI claims in Busch v. McInnis Waste Systems, Inc., 366 Or. 628, 468 P.3d 419 (2020); ORS 31.710 amended (2021 c.478) so the flat $500,000 cap now applies only to wrongful death.

• Invitee Duty and Obviousness: Woolston requires reasonable care by both possessor and invitee. Obviousness and avoidability bear on negligence and comparative fault; they are not framed as an automatic no-liability rule.

• Snow and Ice: Apply the ordinary reasonable-care, notice, foreseeability, and comparative-fault analysis to the specific condition; do not assume a categorical accumulation rule.

• Oregon Tort Claims Act: Notice is generally due within 180 days, or one year for wrongful death; statutory methods and recipients matter, a two-year action period generally applies, and annually adjusted state/local limits must be checked. ORS 30.271-30.275.

• Several Liability and Reallocation: ORS 31.610 generally makes each defendant's liability several in proportion to allocated fault, but provides postjudgment procedures for reallocating some uncollectible shares and contains statutory protections and exceptions.

• Collateral Benefits: ORS 31.580 permits post-verdict reduction for specified collateral benefits but excludes enumerated categories, including certain repayable benefits, life/death benefits, benefits from insurance paid for by the injured person or family, and specified retirement, disability, pension, and Social Security benefits. Collateral-benefit evidence is handled after the verdict as the statute directs.

• Interest: ORS 82.010 generally sets judgment interest at 9% per year from entry of judgment unless the judgment specifies another date. Do not assume a personal-injury claim earns prejudgment interest merely because suit was filed; entitlement requires claim-specific analysis beyond the statutory rate.

• Venue: ORS 14.080 generally permits filing where a defendant resides at commencement or where the cause of action arose; apply the statute's entity-residence provisions and any claim-specific venue rule.