DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL
STATE OF WASHINGTON
[FIRM NAME]
Attorneys at Law
[Street Address]
[City, Washington ZIP]
Telephone: [Phone]
Facsimile: [Fax]
Email: [Email]
Licensed in the State of Washington
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], Washington. This letter constitutes our formal demand for settlement and provides a comprehensive analysis of liability under Washington law, our client's injuries, and damages.
I. WASHINGTON-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK
A. Statute of Limitations
Under RCW 4.16.080(2), the statute of limitations for personal injury claims arising from premises liability is three (3) 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 Washington Law
Washington has abolished the common law distinction between invitees and licensees. Under Younce v. Ferguson, 106 Wn.2d 658, 724 P.2d 991 (1986), Washington applies a single standard of reasonable care:
"A landowner owes entrants a duty of reasonable care under all the circumstances."
This unified standard requires property owners to:
- Maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Discover and correct or warn of dangerous conditions
- Exercise reasonable care to protect lawful visitors from foreseeable harm
- Consider all relevant circumstances including the foreseeability of harm
See also Iwai v. State, 129 Wn.2d 84, 915 P.2d 1089 (1996).
C. Pure Comparative Negligence
Washington follows pure comparative negligence under RCW 4.22.005:
- A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of fault
- A plaintiff may recover even if more than 50% at fault (unlike modified comparative negligence states)
Our client exercised reasonable care at all times and bears no responsibility for this incident.
D. Constructive Notice Standard
Under Washington law, constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition exists when the condition has been present for a sufficient length of time that the owner, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have discovered and corrected it. Pimentel v. Rounds, 106 Wn.2d 383, 722 P.2d 79 (1986).
E. Snow and Ice Liability
Washington follows the natural accumulation rule for snow and ice. Under Merritt v. Bel Air Community Ice Skating Corp., 10 Wn. App. 794, 520 P.2d 181 (1974), property owners generally have no duty to remove naturally accumulating snow and ice.
However, property owners may be liable when:
- The accumulation is unnatural (caused by defective drainage, artificial conditions, or structural defects)
- The owner has aggravated the natural condition through conduct
- The owner has undertaken to remove snow/ice and done so negligently
- The condition is hidden or concealed from visitors
- Local ordinances require snow/ice removal
See Tobin v. Seattle, 127 Wn. App. 457, 111 P.3d 886 (2005).
F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims
For claims against Washington governmental entities, RCW 4.96.020 requires a formal claim to be filed within three (3) years for the State, or as required by local ordinance for municipalities (often 60-120 days). Many local governments require claims to be filed within specific time periods - verify with the specific entity.
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
Washington courts recognize spoliation of evidence and may impose sanctions including adverse inference instructions. See Homeworks Constr., Inc. v. Wells, 133 Wn. App. 892, 138 P.3d 654 (2006). 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], Washington. 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 artificial condition created by owner's actions or property defects]
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 WASHINGTON LAW
A. Elements of Premises Liability
Under Washington 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. Younce v. Ferguson, 106 Wn.2d 658.
B. Breach of Duty
Your insured breached the duty of reasonable care owed to our client by:
- Failing to maintain the premises in a reasonably safe condition
- Failing to conduct reasonable inspections to discover the dangerous condition
- Failing to correct or warn of the dangerous condition
- [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 Fault Analysis
While Washington's pure comparative negligence would allow recovery even if our client bore some fault, our client was entirely free from negligence:
- 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
| Provider | Service Dates | Amount Billed |
|---|---|---|
| [Provider] | [Date] | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL PAST MEDICAL | $[Total] |
Future Medical Expenses: $[Amount]
B. Lost Wages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL LOST WAGES | $[Total] |
C. Pain and Suffering
[Detailed description of physical pain, emotional distress, and loss of enjoyment of life]
D. Summary of Damages
| Category | Amount |
|---|---|
| Past Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Future Medical Expenses | $[Amount] |
| Past Lost Wages | $[Amount] |
| Future Lost Earning Capacity | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| Pain and Suffering | $[Amount] |
| TOTAL NON-ECONOMIC DAMAGES | $[Subtotal] |
| TOTAL DAMAGES | $[Grand Total] |
VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND
Based upon the clear liability of your insured under Washington 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 Superior Court of [County] County, Washington.
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 Washington premises liability law. We urge you to give this matter serious and prompt attention.
Respectfully submitted,
[FIRM NAME]
By: _________________________________
[Attorney Name]
Washington State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]
ENCLOSURES: As noted above
cc: [Client Name]
File
WASHINGTON PRACTICE NOTES
- Unified Duty Standard: Washington abolished invitee/licensee distinction. All lawful visitors owed reasonable care. Younce v. Ferguson, 106 Wn.2d 658 (1986).
- Pure Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff may recover even if more than 50% at fault - recovery reduced by percentage of fault. RCW 4.22.005.
- Joint and Several Liability: Abolished in Washington. Each defendant liable only for their percentage of fault. RCW 4.22.070.
- Government Claims: Claims against State must comply with RCW 4.96.020. Local government claims vary - verify specific requirements.
- Natural Accumulation Rule: No duty to remove natural snow/ice, but liability for unnatural accumulations.
- Punitive Damages: Not generally available in Washington absent specific statutory authorization.
- Venue: County where cause of action arose or defendant resides. RCW 4.12.020.
- Collateral Source Rule: Modified by statute. RCW 7.70.080 (medical malpractice); common law applies to premises cases.