Slip and Fall / Premises Liability Demand Letter - Washington

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

RCW 4.16.080(2) provides a three-year period for an action for injury to the person or rights of another not otherwise enumerated. Accrual, tolling, party identity, government-claim presentment, and any more specific 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 Washington Law

Washington has not abolished the invitee/licensee/trespasser classifications. The duty owed by a possessor of land depends on the entrant's status. For an invitee, Washington applies Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 343 and 343A: the possessor may be liable for a dangerous condition if the possessor knows or through reasonable care would discover it, should realize it presents an unreasonable risk, should expect the invitee will not discover or protect against it, and fails to use reasonable care. Little v. Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc., 24 Wn. App. 2d 506, 520 P.3d 977 (2022); Eylander v. Prologis Targeted U.S. Logistics Fund, LP, 2 Wn.3d 401, 539 P.3d 376 (2023).

Classify the claimant from the actual facts and identify the defendant that possessed or controlled the relevant area. Do not use Younce v. Ferguson for a nonexistent unified entrant standard.

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

Ordinarily, an invitee relying on constructive notice must show that the specific unsafe condition existed long enough that the possessor, exercising ordinary care, had sufficient opportunity to inspect and remove or warn of the danger. Iwai v. State, 129 Wn.2d 84, 96, 915 P.2d 1089 (1996). Actual notice, defendant creation of the condition, and the limited foreseeability exception discussed in Johnson v. Liquor & Cannabis Board, 197 Wn.2d 605, 486 P.3d 125 (2021), require fact-specific analysis. The demand should identify evidence supporting the applicable route rather than infer notice from the fall alone.

E. Snow and Ice Liability

Do not use a categorical “natural accumulation” immunity. In Little, a published ice-fall decision, the court held that a grocery-store possessor had a duty to keep its parking lot reasonably safe from ice accumulation where customer use and harm were reasonably anticipated. Even obvious ice does not automatically eliminate the duty if the possessor should anticipate harm. Liability remains fact-specific and requires proof of a dangerous condition, the applicable notice or foreseeability route, breach, causation, and damages. Develop weather timing, inspection and remediation evidence, drainage or refreezing, warnings, customary paths, prior reports, and whether reasonable precautions were taken. Little, 24 Wn. App. 2d 506; see also Iwai, 129 Wn.2d 84.

F. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

State and local claims use different statutes:

• State: RCW 4.92.100 requires tort claims against the State or its officers, employees, or volunteers acting in that capacity to be presented to the Office of Risk Management on the standard tort claim form. RCW 4.92.110 bars suit until 60 calendar days after presentment and tolls the limitations period during that interval.
• Local governmental entity: RCW 4.96.020 requires presentment to the entity's appointed claim agent within the applicable limitations period, using the standard form or a qualifying local form. Suit may not begin until 60 calendar days after presentment, and the limitations period is tolled during that interval.

Confirm the correct public defendant, claim agent or office, form, delivery method, statutory contents and signature, substantial-compliance law, immunities, and any claim-specific limit before filing. The former statement that municipalities may impose arbitrary 60-to-120-day claim periods is incorrect.

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 evaluate alleged spoliation by considering culpability and the relevance or importance of the missing evidence. A remedy is circumstance-dependent. A published 2023 decision holds that an adverse-inference instruction is not proper unless the failure to preserve was intentional or rose to bad faith; lesser conduct may support a different remedy if the governing standards are met. Seattle Tunnel Partners v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC, No. 79460-4-I (Wash. Ct. App. Apr. 24, 2023). This notice requests reasonable preservation and 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], 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 the precise ice or snow condition, location, visibility, weather timing, inspection history, warnings, drainage/refreezing, and remediation evidence]

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

The negligence elements are duty, breach, injury, and proximate cause. Johnson v. Liquor & Cannabis Board, 197 Wn.2d 605, 611, 486 P.3d 125 (2021). In a condition-on-land claim, the duty analysis also depends on entrant status, possession or control, the condition, notice or a recognized exception, and whether harm should have been anticipated. Little, 24 Wn. App. 2d 506.

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 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

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 presently available evidence concerning duty, the dangerous condition, notice, breach, causation, and the documented injuries and 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, 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 presently available evidence supports our client's claim that your insured breached the applicable Washington duty and 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]
Washington State Bar No. [Number]
Attorney for [Client Name]

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

WASHINGTON PRACTICE NOTES

• Entrant Classification: Washington continues to distinguish invitees, licensees, and trespassers. Apply the duty matching the claimant's actual status; §§ 343 and 343A govern invitee condition claims. Little, 24 Wn. App. 2d 506; Eylander, 2 Wn.3d 401.
• Pure Comparative Negligence: Plaintiff may recover even if more than 50% at fault - recovery reduced by percentage of fault. RCW 4.22.005.
• Allocation: RCW 4.22.070 generally uses several liability, but preserves joint and several liability for acting-in-concert and agency/servant circumstances and, among defendants against whom judgment is entered, when the claimant is fault-free. Other statutory carve-outs also require review.
• Government Claims: State claims use RCW 4.92.100-.110; local-government claims use RCW 4.96.020. Both current schemes include a 60-calendar-day waiting period and tolling rule.
• Snow and Ice: Apply ordinary premises principles and Little's anticipation analysis; do not use a categorical natural-accumulation immunity.
• Venue: Under RCW 4.12.020(3), a personal-injury plaintiff may sue where the cause or part of it arose, where the defendant resides, or, with multiple defendants, where one defendant resides when the action begins.
• Public and Special Defendants: Separately analyze immunity, statutory limits, recreational-use issues, employment status, and any special claim statute.

SOURCES AND REFERENCES

• RCW 4.16.080
• RCW 4.22.005
• RCW 4.22.070
• RCW 4.92.100
• RCW 4.92.110
• RCW 4.96.020
• RCW 4.12.020
• Little v. Rosauers Supermarkets, Inc. (official opinion)
• Eylander v. Prologis Targeted U.S. Logistics Fund, LP (official opinion)
• Seattle Tunnel Partners v. Great Lakes Reinsurance (UK) PLC (official opinion)