Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Texas

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF TEXAS

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

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

I. TEXAS-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Texas Civil Practice and Remedies Code § 16.003 generally requires a personal-injury suit to be filed no later than two years after the claim accrues. Accrual, tolling, and other exceptions are fact-specific; verify the deadline before stating an expiration date. This incident occurred on [Date], and counsel has calculated the present filing deadline as [Expiration Date].

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Texas Law

Texas retains the traditional common law classifications of entrants onto property, with corresponding duties. Under Austin v. Kroger Texas, L.P., 465 S.W.3d 193 (Tex. 2015), and the Texas Supreme Court's framework in Corbin v. Safeway Stores, Inc., 648 S.W.2d 292 (Tex. 1983):

Business Invitee: Our client was a business invitee—one who entered with the owner's knowledge for a purpose of mutual benefit. Subject to the known-or-obvious-condition rules discussed in Austin, a premises owner or occupier must use ordinary care to reduce or eliminate an unreasonable risk of harm posed by a condition it knew or reasonably should have known about. The duty may be discharged by making the condition reasonably safe or providing an adequate warning.

The classification and duty must be matched to the claimant's actual status and the specific condition; do not describe the owner as an insurer of invitee safety.

See Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002).

C. Modified Comparative Negligence - 51% Bar

Texas follows modified proportionate responsibility under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 33.001 et seq.:

• A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of responsibility
• A plaintiff is barred from recovery if found to be more than 50% responsible

Our client exercised reasonable care at all times and bears no responsibility for this incident.

D. Texas Premises Liability Elements

Under Texas law, a premises liability plaintiff must prove: Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992):

1. Actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises
2. The condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm
3. The owner failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk
4. The failure to exercise reasonable care proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries

E. Constructive Notice - Time-Notice Rule

Texas follows the time-notice rule for constructive knowledge. Under Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812 (Tex. 2002), mere proof that a hazardous condition existed is insufficient. The plaintiff must show:

• Actual knowledge: The owner knew of the condition, OR
• Constructive knowledge: The condition existed long enough to give the owner a reasonable opportunity to discover it

Constructive knowledge requires evidence making it more likely than not that the specific dangerous condition existed long enough to provide a reasonable opportunity to discover it. Relevant considerations include duration, proximity of an owner or employee, and conspicuity, but proximity or a deficient inspection policy does not replace temporal evidence. H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, No. 24-0310 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026); Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 814-17.

For a transient spill or puddle, condition size, dirt, footprints, tracks, a possible source, or earlier hazards elsewhere ordinarily do not by themselves prove duration. Evidence of earlier leaks must correlate to the dangerous condition at the time and place of injury.

F. Snow and Ice Liability

Naturally occurring ice that accumulates without the owner's assistance ordinarily is not an unreasonably dangerous condition under Texas law. Liability may depend on evidence that:

• the owner actively created or permitted an unnatural accumulation; or
• the snow or ice concealed a separate defect or hazard that an invitee would not reasonably anticipate from general winter conditions.

Salting, shoveling, or applying deicer does not by itself convert a natural accumulation into an unnatural one. Scott & White Mem'l Hosp. v. Fair, 310 S.W.3d 411, 413-19 (Tex. 2010).

G. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

For a claim against a Texas governmental unit, § 101.101 generally requires notice no later than six months after the incident, reasonably describing the damage or injury, the time and place, and the incident. Actual notice can satisfy the statute, and a municipality's charter or ordinance may impose an approved notice period. Government premises claims also require a waiver of immunity under the Act; § 101.022 generally applies a licensee-level duty to ordinary premises defects, subject to the special-defect rule, and § 101.023 limits recoverable damages. Identify the correct governmental unit and check its local notice rule immediately.

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
• Insurance policies applicable to this claim

Texas courts address spoliation through the trial court's inherent authority. Remedies depend on a court finding a preservation duty and breach, and must be proportionate to prejudice; a spoliation instruction is reserved for intentional concealment or the rare negligent destruction that irreparably deprives the opposing party of a meaningful presentation. Brookshire Bros., Ltd. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9, 20-27 (Tex. 2014). Preserve relevant evidence according to the scope and duration reasonably required by the anticipated claim.

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," etc.] in [City], Texas. At all relevant times, [Property Owner Name] owned, operated, possessed, maintained, and/or controlled the subject 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 - Select applicable option:]

Wet/Slippery Floor: A liquid substance 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] created a tripping hazard that was not marked, repaired, or remediated.

Defective Stairs/Steps: The stairway at [location] was defective and dangerous due to [describe defect].

Foreign Object/Debris: [Describe object] was present on the floor, creating a tripping hazard.

Ice/Snow Accumulation: [Describe unnatural accumulation or artificial condition]

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity - e.g., "shopping at the premises," "visiting as a business invitee"] when [describe the fall in detail].

D. Notice and Knowledge

Your insured had actual and/or constructive knowledge of this hazardous condition:

Actual Knowledge:

• [Prior complaints about the same condition]
• [Condition was created by defendant's employees]
• [Employee acknowledgment of awareness]

Constructive Knowledge:

• [Direct or circumstantial evidence showing how long this specific condition existed]
• [Employee proximity and the condition's conspicuity, together with temporal evidence]
• [Evidence connecting an earlier recurring condition to this hazard at the same relevant time and place]

Do not rely on footprints, dirt, tracks, puddle size, a possible source, or inspection failures alone as proof of duration. H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, No. 24-0310 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026).

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS UNDER TEXAS LAW

A. Elements of Premises Liability

Under Texas law, our client must establish: (1) actual or constructive knowledge of a condition on the premises; (2) the condition posed an unreasonable risk of harm; (3) the owner failed to exercise reasonable care to reduce or eliminate the risk; and (4) the failure proximately caused the plaintiff's injuries. Keetch v. Kroger Co., 845 S.W.2d 262 (Tex. 1992).

B. Breach of Duty - Unreasonable Risk of Harm

Your insured breached its duty to our client by:

1. Failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Failing to conduct reasonable inspections to discover the dangerous condition
3. Failing to correct or warn of the dangerous condition
4. [Additional specific breaches]

C. Actual or Constructive Knowledge

The knowledge element is satisfied here because:

Actual Knowledge: [Describe evidence of actual knowledge]

Constructive Knowledge: The condition existed long enough to give your insured a reasonable opportunity to discover it. Reece, 81 S.W.3d at 816. Evidence includes:

• [Evidence establishing the condition's duration]
• [Proximity and conspicuity evidence that supplements—not replaces—the duration evidence]
• [Earlier incidents tied to the same condition at the relevant location]

D. Causation

The dangerous condition was the direct and proximate cause of our client's fall and resulting injuries. But for your insured's negligence, our client would not have been injured.

E. Proportionate Responsibility Defense - Inapplicable

We reject any assertion that our client bears proportionate responsibility:

• Our client was exercising reasonable care for [his/her] own safety
• The hazard was not open and obvious
• Our client had no reason to anticipate the dangerous condition
• [Additional factors]

V. INJURIES AND MEDICAL TREATMENT

A. Injuries Sustained

As a direct and proximate result of the fall, our client sustained the following injuries:

[List specific injuries with diagnoses]

B. Medical Treatment

Emergency Treatment: [Date, Provider, Treatment]

Surgical Intervention (if applicable): [Date, Procedure, Provider]

Ongoing Treatment: [Physical therapy, specialist care, etc.]

C. Current Status and Prognosis

[Describe current condition and prognosis from treating physicians]

VI. DAMAGES

A. Medical Expenses

Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]

Under Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code § 41.0105, recovery of medical or health-care expenses is limited to amounts actually paid or incurred by or on behalf of the claimant. Verify recoverable figures rather than using billed charges alone.

B. Lost Wages

C. Pain and Suffering (Physical Pain and Mental Anguish)

[Detailed description of physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life]

D. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear liability of your insured under Texas premises liability law, the severity of our client's injuries, and the substantial damages incurred, we hereby demand:

$[DEMAND AMOUNT]

This demand will remain open for thirty (30) days from the date of this letter, expiring on [Expiration Date].

Should you fail to respond to this demand within the specified time, or should you fail to make a reasonable offer, we will file suit in the District Court of [County] County, Texas.

VIII. DOCUMENTATION ENCLOSED

• Complete medical records and bills from all treating providers
• Photographs of the incident location
• Photographs of client's injuries
• Incident report (if obtained)
• Employment and wage verification
• HIPAA authorizations

IX. CONCLUSION

The evidence establishes clear liability on the part of your insured under Texas premises liability law. We urge you to give this matter serious and prompt attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

TEXAS PRACTICE NOTES

• Modified Comparative Responsibility (51%): Plaintiff barred if more than 50% responsible. Tex. Civ. Prac. & Rem. Code Section 33.001.
• Proportionate Responsibility: Recovery is barred only when claimant responsibility exceeds 50%. Section 33.013 generally imposes several liability by percentage but preserves joint-and-several liability in specified circumstances, including when a liable defendant exceeds the statutory responsibility threshold.
• Time-Notice Constructive Knowledge: A transient condition requires duration evidence; possible source, size, dirt, tracks, employee proximity, and inspection failures alone are insufficient. H-E-B v. Peterson, No. 24-0310 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026); Reece, 81 S.W.3d 812.
• Spoliation: Any remedy must follow judicial findings of duty, breach, culpability, and prejudice and must be proportionate. Brookshire Bros. v. Aldridge, 438 S.W.3d 9 (Tex. 2014).
• Government Claims: Check § 101.101, actual notice, the governmental unit's local notice rules, waiver and duty under § 101.022, and caps under § 101.023.
• Exemplary Damages: Section 41.003 requires clear and convincing proof of fraud, malice, or gross negligence. Section 41.008 generally caps exemplary damages at the greater of (a) two times economic damages plus noneconomic damages up to $750,000, or (b) $200,000, subject to statutory exceptions.
• Venue: Section 15.002 supplies several alternative general-venue grounds; select the ground supported by the defendant type and facts.
• Chapter 18 Affidavits: Chapter 18 governs matters including affidavits concerning cost and necessity of services and related counteraffidavits; it is not a procedure for obtaining responsible-third-party information. Responsible-third-party designation is addressed in Chapter 33.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• Texas Constitution and Statutes — Civil Practice and Remedies Code
• H-E-B, LP v. Peterson, No. 24-0310 (Tex. Apr. 10, 2026)
• Supreme Court of Texas opinions