DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

COMMONWEALTH OF PENNSYLVANIA

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

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

I. PENNSYLVANIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under 42 Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes Section 5524, 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 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 5522, written notice must be provided within six (6) months of the injury. Local agencies require notice under the Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act. [If applicable: We have complied with this requirement by providing notice on [Date].]

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Pennsylvania Law

Pennsylvania follows the Restatement (Second) of Torts Sections 343 and 343A for premises liability. Under Carrender v. Fitterer, 503 Pa. 178 (1983), Pennsylvania has abolished the common law distinction between licensees and invitees and adopted a standard of reasonable care.

For Business Invitees: Property owners owe a duty to protect invitees from foreseeable harm. Under Restatement (Second) Section 343, a possessor of land is subject to liability for physical harm caused to invitees by a condition on the land if:

1. The possessor knows or by exercise of reasonable care would discover the condition and should realize it involves an unreasonable risk
2. The possessor should expect that invitees will not discover or realize the danger or will fail to protect themselves
3. The possessor fails to exercise reasonable care to protect invitees against the danger

See Moultrey v. Great A & P Tea Co., 422 Pa. Super. 124 (1992).

C. Modified Comparative Negligence

Pennsylvania follows modified comparative negligence under 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 7102. A plaintiff may recover damages only if the plaintiff's negligence is not greater than the causal negligence of the defendant(s). 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. Hills and Ridges Doctrine (Snow and Ice)

Pennsylvania follows the "hills and ridges" doctrine for snow and ice liability. Under Wentz v. Pennswood Apartments, 518 Pa. 60 (1988), in order to recover for injuries sustained as a result of snow and ice conditions, a plaintiff must prove:

1. Snow and ice had accumulated in ridges or elevations (not a general slippery condition)
2. The ridges or elevations were of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel and constitute a danger
3. The property owner had notice of the condition (actual or constructive)

IMPORTANT: This doctrine applies only to generally slippery conditions caused by weather. It does NOT apply when:
- The owner creates or aggravates the condition through negligent snow removal
- There is localized accumulation in one spot (not general slipperiness)
- The icy condition results from water dripping from the building or other artificial cause

See Harmotta v. Bender, 601 A.2d 837 (Pa. Super. 1992).

[If ice/snow case:] The hazardous condition at issue was [hills and ridges that unreasonably obstructed travel / a localized condition not subject to the hills and ridges doctrine because _______ / an unnatural accumulation caused by defendant's actions].

E. Notice Requirements

Under Pennsylvania law, 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 such a length of time that in the exercise of reasonable care the owner should have known of it. Neve v. Insalaco's, 771 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2001).

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

Pennsylvania courts impose severe sanctions for spoliation of evidence, including adverse inference instructions. Mount Olivet Tabernacle Church v. Edwin L. Wiegand Div., 781 A.2d 1263 (Pa. Super. 2001).

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: [Describe the snow/ice condition - for hills and ridges cases: "Snow and ice had accumulated in substantial ridges and elevations at [location] that unreasonably obstructed travel." For non-hills and ridges cases: "A localized patch of ice / ice resulting from water runoff from the building / ice created by defendant's negligent snow removal efforts existed 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.

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 Pennsylvania Law

Under Carrender v. Fitterer, 503 Pa. 178 (1983), and Restatement (Second) of Torts Sections 343 and 343A, [Property Owner Name] owed our client a duty to:

1. Keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Discover and correct or warn of dangerous conditions
3. Conduct reasonable inspections to discover hazards
4. Protect invitees from foreseeable 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 Pennsylvania law, constructive notice exists when a dangerous condition has existed for such a length of time that in the exercise of reasonable care the owner should have known of it. Neve v. Insalaco's, 771 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2001).

[Include evidence of constructive notice]

C. Hills and Ridges Analysis (If Snow/Ice Case)

[Select appropriate option:]

Option 1 - Hills and Ridges Doctrine Satisfied:
The snow and ice had accumulated in ridges and elevations of such size and character as to unreasonably obstruct travel at [location]. Defendant had [actual / constructive] notice of this condition.

Option 2 - Hills and Ridges Doctrine Does Not Apply:
The hills and ridges doctrine does not apply because [the condition was a localized accumulation, not general slipperiness / the ice resulted from defendant's negligent snow removal / the ice resulted from unnatural causes such as water dripping from the building / defendant created or aggravated the condition].

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

Pennsylvania 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]

Commonwealth of Pennsylvania:

Claims against the Commonwealth are governed by 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 8522. Sovereign immunity has been waived for certain exceptions, including:
- Dangerous conditions of Commonwealth real estate

Written notice must be provided within 6 months per 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 5522.

Local Agencies (Political Subdivisions):

Claims against local agencies are governed by 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Sections 8541-8564 (Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act). Immunity has been waived for:
- Real property dangerous conditions (Section 8542(b)(3))
- Sidewalk liability (where applicable)

Damage Caps for Government Claims:
- $250,000 per person (local agencies)
- $1,000,000 per occurrence (local agencies)

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 Court of Common Pleas of [County] County, Pennsylvania.

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 Pennsylvania 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]
Pennsylvania Attorney ID No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

PENNSYLVANIA-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Negligence: Recovery barred if plaintiff 51% or more at fault. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 7102.

• Hills and Ridges Doctrine: For generally slippery snow/ice conditions, must prove hills/ridges that unreasonably obstructed travel. Wentz v. Pennswood Apartments, 518 Pa. 60 (1988). Does NOT apply to localized conditions, unnatural accumulations, or negligent snow removal.

• Restatement (Second) Standard: Pennsylvania follows Restatement Sections 343 and 343A. Carrender v. Fitterer, 503 Pa. 178 (1983).

• Notice Requirement: Must prove defendant created condition, had actual notice, or had constructive notice. Neve v. Insalaco's, 771 A.2d 786 (Pa. Super. 2001).

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

• Government Claims: 6-month notice required. Political Subdivision Tort Claims Act limits liability.

• Joint and Several Liability: Applies when defendant 60% or more at fault. 42 Pa. Cons. Stat. Section 7102(a.2).

• Delay Damages: Available under Pa. R. Civ. P. 238 when judgment exceeds rejected offer.

• Venue: County where cause of action arose or where defendant may be served. Pa. R. Civ. P. 1006.