Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Rhode Island

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF RHODE ISLAND

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

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 / City/Town], Rhode Island. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement and provides a comprehensive analysis of liability under Rhode Island law, our client's injuries, and damages.

I. RHODE ISLAND-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-1-14(b) generally requires an action for injury to the person to be commenced within three (3) years after the cause of action accrues. Accrual, tolling, party identity, government status, and claim-specific provisions can affect the deadline. Counsel should independently calculate the filing deadline rather than relying only on the incident date.

For claims against governmental entities: Section 9-1-25 generally requires tort actions against the State, a political subdivision, city, or town to be instituted within three years after accrual. Municipal claims also implicate § 45-15-5's presentment to the council and 40-day satisfaction period. A claim for a defect in a public highway, causeway, or bridge has a distinct 60-day written-notice rule under §§ 45-15-9 and 45-15-10. [If applicable: Identify the entity, property type, presentment, notice, recipient, dates, and proof of delivery.]

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Rhode Island Law

Rhode Island abolished the common-law invitee, licensee, and trespasser categories as determinative standards of care in Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc., 114 R.I. 294, 333 A.2d 127 (1975). The governing inquiry is whether the owner used reasonable care for the safety of persons reasonably expected to be on the premises. Entrant status may be relevant to foreseeability, but it is not conclusive.

For a person reasonably expected on the premises, reasonable care may include:

1. Exercising reasonable care to discover unreasonably dangerous conditions
2. Warning of or correcting discovered dangerous conditions
3. Conducting reasonable inspections
4. Taking reasonable steps to protect invitees from foreseeable harm

Our client was lawfully and reasonably expected to be on the premises for [business purpose], a circumstance supporting the foreseeability of our client's presence.

C. Pure Comparative Negligence

Rhode Island follows pure comparative negligence under R.I. Gen. Laws Section 9-20-4. A plaintiff may recover damages even if the plaintiff is more at fault than the defendant. Recovery is simply reduced by the plaintiff's percentage of fault.

The statute also provides that an open and obvious danger does not bar recovery; any proven negligence is addressed through proportional reduction.

Our client bears no responsibility for this incident.

D. Snow and Ice Liability in Rhode Island

Rhode Island follows the Connecticut Rule for naturally occurring snow and ice. A landlord or business invitor generally has a reasonable time after a storm ends to remove the accumulation or make common areas reasonably safe. During an ongoing storm, that duty ordinarily has not arisen unless unusual circumstances created by the invitor exacerbate the inherent risk. Allen v. Sitrin, 308 A.3d 975 (R.I. 2024); Berardis v. Louangxay, 969 A.2d 1288 (R.I. 2009).

Analyze the evidence concerning whether the storm was ongoing, whether the condition was a natural accumulation, when a reasonable response period elapsed, and whether the defendant's conduct created a heightened risk. The ability to take precautions, standing alone, does not establish the unusual-circumstances exception.

[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 Rhode Island 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, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered it. Salk v. Alpine Ski Shop, Inc., 115 R.I. 309 (1975).

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

The deliberate or negligent destruction of relevant evidence may permit—but does not compel—an inference that the evidence was unfavorable to the responsible party. The inference is not conclusive, and its availability depends on the facts. Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744, 748-51 (R.I. 2000).

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 Rhode Island Law

Under Mariorenzi v. Joseph DiPonte, Inc., 114 R.I. 294 (1975), and Tancrelle v. Friendly Ice Cream Corp., 756 A.2d 744 (R.I. 2000), [Property Owner Name] owed persons reasonably expected on the premises duties of reasonable care that may include:

1. To exercise reasonable care to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. To discover unreasonably dangerous conditions through reasonable inspection
3. To warn of or correct known dangerous conditions
4. To take reasonable steps to 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 Rhode Island law, constructive notice exists when a dangerous condition has existed for such a length of time that the owner, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered it. Salk v. Alpine Ski Shop, Inc., 115 R.I. 309 (1975).

[Include evidence of constructive notice]

C. Causation

The dangerous condition described above was the proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries under Rhode Island law.

D. Comparative Fault Defense

While Rhode Island applies pure comparative negligence, our client was exercising reasonable care:

• 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 an ordinary private premises claim, no generally applicable Rhode Island statute caps compensatory noneconomic damages. Government and other claim-specific limits may apply. Subject to proof and any applicable limitation, 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]

State of Rhode Island:

Under § 9-31-1, the State and political subdivisions are generally liable in tort in the same manner as a private person, subject to the chapter's monetary limits and other doctrines. Section 9-31-2 generally caps recovery at $100,000, but the cap does not apply when the State was engaged in a proprietary function or agreed to specified federal indemnification.

Municipalities:

Section 45-15-5 generally requires presentment of a particularized claim to the town or city council and allows suit if satisfaction is not made within 40 days. For injury caused by a defect in a public highway, causeway, or bridge, §§ 45-15-8 to 45-15-10 require proof of municipal notice or discoverability and a signed written notice to the council within 60 days stating the time, place, and cause. Section 45-15-12 separately caps recovery in such a highway/bridge personal-injury action at $100,000. Analyze the public-duty doctrine and any claim-specific immunity.

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 Superior Court of the State of Rhode Island, [County / Providence/Bristol County / Washington County / Newport County / Kent 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 Rhode Island 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 care. Our client was lawfully and foreseeably on the premises, exercised reasonable care, and sustained the documented injuries as a result.

Rhode Island's pure comparative negligence rule means that even if you believe our client bore some responsibility (which we dispute), recovery is not barred - only reduced. This significantly impacts your exposure calculation.

I look forward to your prompt response.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Rhode Island Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: [List]

cc: [Client Name]
[File]

RHODE ISLAND-SPECIFIC PRACTICE NOTES

• Pure Comparative Negligence: Recovery is not barred by the claimant's percentage of fault or merely because a danger was open and obvious; damages are reduced proportionally. R.I. Gen. Laws § 9-20-4.

• Entrant Categories: Mariorenzi abolished the common-law categories as determinative duty standards; use reasonable care and foreseeability for persons reasonably expected on the premises.

• Snow and Ice: The Connecticut Rule generally allows a reasonable response period after an ongoing storm ends, subject to a narrow unusual-circumstances exception for heightened risks created by the invitor. Allen, 308 A.3d 975.

• Notice Requirement: For a condition the defendant did not create, develop evidence of actual knowledge or facts supporting constructive discovery through reasonable care. Salk v. Alpine Ski Shop, Inc., 115 R.I. 309 (1975); Tancrelle, 756 A.2d 744.

• Ordinary Private-Claim Limits: No generally applicable Rhode Island statute caps compensatory damages in an ordinary private premises claim; government and other claim-specific limits may apply.

• Multiple Tortfeasors and Releases: R.I. Gen. Laws chapter 10-6 governs contribution among joint tortfeasors. Section 10-6-7 addresses the effect of releasing one tortfeasor; it does not itself establish a generic “modified joint and several liability” rule.

• Collateral Source Rule: Rhode Island generally follows the common-law collateral-source rule in ordinary tort cases, subject to statutory exceptions such as the medical-malpractice provision in § 9-19-34.1.

• Interest: In a civil action resulting in pecuniary damages, § 9-21-10 generally adds 12% prejudgment interest from the date the cause of action accrued and 12% postjudgment interest on principal and prejudgment interest. The statute applies at judgment and contains a distinct medical-malpractice rule.

• Offer of Judgment: R.I. Super. R. Civ. P. 68 provides cost-shifting mechanism.