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
Under Oregon Revised Statutes Section 12.110, 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 public bodies: Under the Oregon Tort Claims Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Section 30.275(2), written notice must be provided within 180 days of the alleged loss or injury (270 days for wrongful death claims). [If applicable: We have complied with this requirement by providing notice on [Date].]
B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Oregon Law
Oregon has abolished the traditional common law distinctions between invitees, licensees, and trespassers in certain contexts through Or. Rev. Stat. Section 30.115. However, for most premises liability cases, Oregon continues to apply status-based distinctions under common law.
Business Invitees (highest duty): Property owners owe invitees a duty of ordinary care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition. Under Woolston v. Wells, 297 Or. 548 (1984), an owner owes an invitee a duty to:
- Keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Discover unreasonably dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
- Either repair or warn of known dangerous conditions
Oregon's approach to foreseeability: Under Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1 (1987), the relevant inquiry is whether defendant's conduct unreasonably created a foreseeable risk of harm of the type that befell plaintiff.
C. Modified Comparative Fault
Oregon follows modified comparative fault under Or. Rev. Stat. Section 31.600. A plaintiff may recover damages only if the plaintiff's fault is not greater than the combined fault 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. Snow and Ice Liability in Oregon
Oregon does not follow the "natural accumulation" rule that immunizes property owners for naturally occurring ice and snow. Instead, Oregon applies the general reasonableness standard to snow and ice cases.
Property owners must exercise reasonable care to protect invitees from snow and ice hazards, considering:
- The nature and severity of the conditions
- The time elapsed since the weather event
- The feasibility of remediation
- Whether the hazard was foreseeable
See Denton v. Lo-Ji, Inc., 79 Or. App. 675 (1986).
[If ice/snow case:] The hazardous ice/snow condition at issue was known or should have been known to the defendant, who failed to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees.
E. Notice Requirements
Under Oregon law, to establish liability, a plaintiff must prove:
- The owner created the dangerous condition; OR
- The owner had actual knowledge of the dangerous condition; OR
- The owner had constructive knowledge - the condition existed for a sufficient time that the owner, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered and remediated it. Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 246 Or. 30 (1967).
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
Oregon courts recognize spoliation claims and may impose sanctions, including adverse inference instructions. Peeples v. Lampert, 345 Or. 209 (2008).
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), and Fazzolari v. Portland School Dist. No. 1J, 303 Or. 1 (1987), [Property Owner Name] owed our client, a business invitee, the following duties:
- To keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- To discover unreasonably dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
- To repair or warn of known dangerous conditions
- To not create 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:
Under Oregon 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. Towe v. Sacagawea, Inc., 246 Or. 30 (1967).
[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 was the actual and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries under Oregon law. The harm was a foreseeable result of defendant's negligence.
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
| Provider | Service Dates | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Date] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
B. Future Medical Expenses
| Future Treatment | Estimated Cost |
|---|---|
| [Treatment] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL FUTURE MEDICAL | $[Total] |
C. Lost Wages and Earning Capacity
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
D. Pain and Suffering / Non-Economic Damages
IMPORTANT - OREGON DAMAGE CAPS:
Under Or. Rev. Stat. Section 31.710, non-economic damages in bodily injury actions are capped. The cap is adjusted periodically for inflation. As of the most recent adjustment, the cap is approximately $500,000 (verify current cap).
Exception: The cap does not apply if clear and convincing evidence establishes certain types of permanent injury.
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
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. GOVERNMENT ENTITY CLAIMS
[USE THIS SECTION ONLY IF DEFENDANT IS PUBLIC BODY]
This claim involves a public body. We have complied with the Oregon Tort Claims Act, Or. Rev. Stat. Sections 30.260 et seq.:
- Written notice provided within 180 days per Section 30.275(2)
- Notice served on [Entity Name] on [Date]
Liability Caps: Under Or. Rev. Stat. Section 30.271:
- $2,164,000 per occurrence (adjusted periodically)
- Individual cap limits apply
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 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 in this case establishes clear and indisputable liability under Oregon 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. Our client, who was lawfully on the premises and exercising reasonable care, was seriously injured as a direct result.
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: Approximately $500,000 (adjusted periodically). Or. Rev. Stat. Section 31.710. Exception for certain permanent injuries.
-
Foreseeability Standard: Under Fazzolari, focus on whether defendant's conduct created foreseeable risk. 303 Or. 1 (1987).
-
No Natural Accumulation Rule: Property owners must exercise reasonable care for snow/ice.
-
Oregon Tort Claims Act: 180-day notice required for public bodies. Liability caps apply. Or. Rev. Stat. Section 30.275.
-
Joint and Several Liability: Generally abolished; defendants liable for their percentage. Or. Rev. Stat. Section 31.610.
-
Collateral Source Rule: Applies in Oregon; collateral benefits do not reduce recovery.
-
Prejudgment Interest: Available at 9% from date action filed for contract claims; discretionary for tort claims. Or. Rev. Stat. Section 82.010.
-
Offer of Judgment: Or. R. Civ. P. 54 E provides cost-shifting mechanism.