DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA

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

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

I. VIRGINIA-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Virginia Code Annotated Section 8.01-243(A), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising from premises liability is two (2) years from the date of injury. This claim arises from an incident that occurred on [Date], and therefore the limitations period expires on [Expiration Date].

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Virginia Law

Virginia retains the traditional common law classifications of entrants onto property, with corresponding duties:

Business Invitee (Highest Duty): Under Norris v. W.W. Growers, Inc., 227 Va. 580, 318 S.E.2d 286 (1984), our client was a business invitee - one who enters premises for purposes connected with the owner's business. Virginia law imposes upon property owners the duty to:

1. Exercise ordinary care to keep the premises in a reasonably safe condition for invitees
2. Warn invitees of unsafe conditions that are known to the owner and unknown to the invitee
3. Make reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions
4. Protect invitees against dangers that the owner knows of or, with reasonable care, could discover

See also Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc. v. Parker, 240 Va. 470, 396 S.E.2d 649 (1990).

C. PURE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE

CRITICAL: Virginia is one of only four U.S. jurisdictions that follows PURE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE.

Under Virginia law, if a plaintiff is found to have contributed to their injury in any degree - even 1% - they are completely barred from recovery. Sawyer v. Comerci, 264 Va. 68, 563 S.E.2d 748 (2002).

Our client was free from any negligence contributing to this incident. Our client:

• Was exercising reasonable care for [his/her] own safety
• Was keeping a proper lookout while walking
• Had no reason to anticipate the dangerous condition
• Could not have discovered the hazard through the exercise of reasonable care
• Was not distracted or inattentive

We are prepared to establish that our client bears absolutely no responsibility for this incident.

D. Open and Obvious Doctrine

Virginia follows the open and obvious doctrine. A property owner is not liable for injuries caused by conditions that are open and obvious to an invitee exercising ordinary care for their own safety. Cowan v. Hospice Support Care, Inc., 268 Va. 482, 603 S.E.2d 916 (2004).

However, this doctrine does not apply when:
- The condition was not actually open and obvious to our client
- The condition was hidden or latent
- Our client's attention was reasonably diverted
- The owner had reason to expect the invitee would not discover the danger

The hazard that injured our client was not open and obvious for the reasons detailed below.

E. Constructive Notice Standard

Under Virginia law, to establish constructive notice, a plaintiff must show that the dangerous condition existed for a sufficient length of time that the property owner, in the exercise of ordinary care, should have discovered and corrected it. Colonial Stores, Inc. v. Pulley, 203 Va. 535, 125 S.E.2d 188 (1962).

F. Snow and Ice Liability

Virginia follows the natural accumulation rule for snow and ice. Property owners generally have no duty to remove naturally accumulating snow and ice. Ashby v. Faison & Assocs., 278 Va. 78, 677 S.E.2d 266 (2009).

However, property owners may be liable when:

• The accumulation is unnatural (caused by defective drainage, downspouts, artificial conditions)
• The owner has aggravated the natural condition
• The owner has undertaken to remove snow/ice and done so negligently
• The condition is hidden beneath a covering that conceals the hazard

See Quisenberry v. Huntington Ingalls Inc., 296 Va. 233, 818 S.E.2d 805 (2018).

G. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

For claims against Virginia governmental entities, the Virginia Tort Claims Act (Va. Code Ann. Section 8.01-195.1 et seq.) applies to state entities. For local government claims, written notice is generally required within six months pursuant to local ordinances or Va. Code Ann. Section 8.01-222.

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

Virginia courts recognize spoliation of evidence and may impose sanctions including adverse inference instructions. See Emerald Point, LLC v. Hawkins, 294 Va. 544, 808 S.E.2d 384 (2017). FAILURE TO PRESERVE THIS EVIDENCE MAY RESULT IN SEVERE SANCTIONS.

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], Virginia. 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. The hazard was not open and obvious because [explain - e.g., "the clear liquid blended with the floor surface," "the area was dimly lit," etc.].

Uneven Walking Surface: A raised or uneven section of [flooring / sidewalk / parking lot] created a tripping hazard that was not marked, repaired, or remediated. The hazard was not open and obvious because [explain].

Defective Stairs/Steps: The stairway at [location] was defective and dangerous due to [describe defect]. The hazard was not open and obvious because [explain].

Foreign Object/Debris: [Describe object] was present on the floor, creating a tripping hazard. The hazard was not open and obvious because [explain].

Ice/Snow Accumulation: [Describe unnatural accumulation or artificial condition]. The hazard was not open and obvious because [explain - e.g., "the ice was covered by a thin layer of snow," "the ice was black ice that blended with the dark pavement"].

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].

Our client was exercising reasonable care at all times by:
- Walking at a normal pace
- Paying attention to [his/her] surroundings
- Not engaging in any distracting behavior
- Using the premises in the manner intended

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:
- The hazardous condition existed for a sufficient length of time that it should have been discovered through reasonable inspection
- [Evidence of duration - footprints, dirty appearance, accumulation size]
- [Inadequate inspection procedures]

IV. LIABILITY ANALYSIS UNDER VIRGINIA LAW

A. Elements of Premises Liability

Under Virginia law, our client must establish: (1) defendant owed a duty of care; (2) defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the proximate cause of injury; (4) damages resulted; and (5) our client was free from contributory negligence. Giant of Va., Inc. v. Pigg, 207 Va. 679, 152 S.E.2d 149 (1967).

B. Breach of Duty

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. 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.

D. Open and Obvious Defense - Inapplicable

The hazardous condition was not open and obvious to our client:

• The hazard was hidden or latent
• Our client could not have discovered it through ordinary observation
• [Specific reasons why not open and obvious]

E. Contributory Negligence Defense - COMPLETELY INAPPLICABLE

We emphasize in the strongest possible terms that our client was entirely free from contributory negligence:

• Our client was exercising ordinary care for [his/her] own safety
• Our client was keeping a proper lookout
• Our client was walking at a reasonable pace
• Our client was not distracted by a phone or other device
• Our client was using the premises in the manner intended
• Our client could not have discovered the hazard through ordinary care
• The hazard was not foreseeable to our client
• There were no warnings that would have alerted our client to the danger

Any attempt to assert contributory negligence will be vigorously contested.

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]

B. Lost Wages

C. Pain and Suffering

[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 Virginia 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 Circuit Court of [City/County], Virginia.

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 Virginia premises liability law. Our client was completely free from contributory negligence - [he/she] was exercising reasonable care at all times and the hazard was not discoverable through ordinary observation.

We urge you to give this matter serious and prompt attention. A jury in Virginia would find in favor of our client on both liability and damages.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

VIRGINIA PRACTICE NOTES

• PURE CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE: Virginia is one of only 4 jurisdictions (with DC, MD, NC) that follows this rule. ANY plaintiff fault bars recovery entirely.
• Open and Obvious Doctrine: Strong defense in Virginia - must establish hazard was not discoverable through ordinary care.
• Traditional Entrant Categories: Virginia still uses invitee/licensee/trespasser classifications with different duty standards.
• Natural Accumulation Rule: No duty to remove natural snow/ice, but liability for unnatural accumulations. Ashby v. Faison, 278 Va. 78 (2009).
• Joint and Several Liability: Virginia retains joint and several liability. Va. Code Ann. Section 8.01-443.
• Punitive Damages: Available for willful and wanton negligence. Must be proven by clear and convincing evidence. Va. Code Ann. Section 8.01-38.1.
• Government Claims: Virginia Tort Claims Act applies to state claims. Local notice requirements vary.
• Venue: City/county where cause of action arose or defendant resides. Va. Code Ann. Section 8.01-262.
• Assumption of Risk: Virginia recognizes express and implied assumption of risk as complete defenses.