Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Vermont

DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF VERMONT

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

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

I. VERMONT-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under 12 V.S.A. § 512(4), an action for injury to the person generally must be commenced within three (3) years after the cause of action accrues, and the statute provides that the cause is deemed to accrue on discovery of the injury. The discovery date, tolling, defendant identity, and any special statute must be analyzed before stating a deadline. Based on the presently known facts, counsel has calculated the filing deadline as [Expiration Date].

B. Premises Liability Duty Standards Under Vermont Law

In Demag v. Better Power Equipment, Inc., 2014 VT 78, ¶¶ 25-26, 197 Vt. 176, 102 A.3d 1101, the Vermont Supreme Court abolished the different common-law duties formerly owed to invitees and licensees and adopted a general duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances. Demag did not abolish Vermont's separate rule for trespassers.

Reasonable care is circumstance-specific. Relevant considerations include foreseeability and severity of harm, the condition and use of the premises, the burden of precautions, the visitor's reason for being present, what the owner knew or reasonably should have known, and what warnings or corrective measures were reasonable. An obvious risk may affect breach and comparative negligence but does not automatically erase the landowner's duty. LeClair v. LeClair, 2017 VT 34.

C. Modified Comparative Negligence

Vermont follows modified comparative negligence under 12 V.S.A. Section 1036:

• A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault
• A plaintiff is barred from recovery only when the plaintiff's negligence is greater than the combined causal negligence of the defendant or defendants; equality does not bar recovery

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

D. Constructive Notice Standard

Whether an owner reasonably should have discovered a condition depends on the evidence, including who created it, its duration and visibility, prior complaints or incidents, inspection practices, and the practical opportunity to warn or correct it. The demand should identify evidence supporting actual or constructive notice rather than assume notice from the accident alone.

E. Snow and Ice Liability

The template's former “natural accumulation” rule and cited Hosford v. McKissock, 2015 VT 130, are not Vermont law; 2015 VT 130 is a Public Service Board solar-project decision. A winter-condition claim should instead be analyzed under Demag's circumstance-specific reasonable-care standard. Develop evidence concerning precipitation and temperature, the location and visibility of the ice or snow, drainage or roof conditions, plowing, shoveling, sanding or salting, inspection timing, warnings, prior notice, and the feasibility of precautions. Do not assume either liability or immunity merely because the condition involved natural precipitation.

F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

The Vermont Tort Claims Act makes the State liable for specified negligent or wrongful acts of employees acting within the scope of employment under circumstances in which a private person would be liable, subject to statutory exclusions and immunity doctrines. 12 V.S.A. §§ 5601-5602. Section 5601(b) limits State liability to $500,000 for one person and $2,000,000 in the aggregate for one occurrence. Confirm the proper State defendant, the private-person analogue, applicable exclusions, and the current procedural route before filing.

For an act or omission by a municipal employee within the scope of employment, 24 V.S.A. § 901a generally places the exclusive action against the employing municipality and bars an action against the employee. When the municipality takes the employee's place, it may assert the employee's defenses but waives defenses unavailable to the employee, including municipal sovereign immunity. The statute does not apply to willful or intentional conduct or conduct outside the employee's authority. 24 V.S.A. § 5602 is not a municipal tort-claim statute and must not be cited for this subject.

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

Vermont Rule of Civil Procedure 37(f) addresses electronically stored information and other evidence that should have been preserved in anticipation or conduct of litigation but is lost because a party failed to take reasonable preservation steps. Any remedy depends on the circumstances, prejudice, availability of replacement evidence, and the culpability required for the requested measure. This notice requests reasonable preservation; it does not predetermine 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], Vermont. 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 visitors 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 condition created by owner's actions, defective drainage, or negligent snow removal]

C. The Incident

On [Date of Incident], at approximately [Time], our client was [describe activity - e.g., "shopping at the premises," "visiting as a patron"] 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:

• 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 VERMONT LAW

A. Elements of Premises Liability

Under Vermont law, our client must establish: (1) defendant owed a duty of reasonable care; (2) defendant breached that duty; (3) the breach was the proximate cause of injury; and (4) damages resulted. Demag v. Better Power Equip., Inc., 2014 VT 78.

B. Breach of Duty

Your insured breached the duty of reasonable care owed 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. Comparative Negligence Defense - Inapplicable

We reject any assertion that our client was comparatively at fault:

• 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]

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 on the evidence summarized above, the claimed injuries, and the documented damages, 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 Superior Court of [County] County, Vermont.

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 presently available evidence supports our client's claim that your insured failed to use reasonable care under the circumstances and that this failure caused the documented injuries. We urge you to evaluate the evidence and respond within the stated demand period.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

VERMONT PRACTICE NOTES

• Unified Duty Standard: Vermont abolished the invitee/licensee duty distinction and applies reasonable care under all the circumstances. Demag v. Better Power Equipment, Inc., 2014 VT 78. The separate trespasser rule remains.
• Modified Comparative Negligence: Recovery is allowed at exactly 50% and barred only when plaintiff negligence exceeds defendants' combined causal negligence. 12 V.S.A. Section 1036.
• Several Liability: Each negligent defendant is liable for its statutory proportion of the award. 12 V.S.A. Section 1036.
• Snow and Ice: Apply Demag's fact-specific reasonable-care standard; do not use the fabricated Hosford citation or a categorical natural-accumulation rule.
• Punitive Damages: Ordinary negligence is insufficient. Vermont requires outrageously reprehensible conduct and actual or legal malice. Fly Fish Vermont, Inc. v. Chapin Hill Estates, Inc., 2010 VT 33.
• Venue: Under 12 V.S.A. § 402(a), a Superior Court action generally belongs in a unit where one of the parties resides if either resides in Vermont; if neither resides in Vermont, it may be brought in any unit. The statute does not create a general “where the cause arose” venue rule.
• Government Defendants: Analyze the Tort Claims Act, § 901a, immunity, insurance, exclusions, employee scope, defendant identity, and any claim-specific procedure separately.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• 12 V.S.A. § 512
• 12 V.S.A. § 1036
• 12 V.S.A. § 402
• Vermont Tort Claims Act
• 24 V.S.A. § 901a
• V.R.C.P. 37(f) promulgation order
• Demag v. Better Power Equipment, Inc. (official opinion)
• LeClair v. LeClair (official opinion)
• Fly Fish Vermont, Inc. v. Chapin Hill Estates, Inc. (official opinion)