DEMAND FOR SETTLEMENT - PREMISES LIABILITY / SLIP AND FALL

STATE OF WISCONSIN

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

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

I. WISCONSIN-SPECIFIC LEGAL FRAMEWORK

A. Statute of Limitations

Under Wisconsin Statutes Section 893.54, 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 Wisconsin Law

Wisconsin has abolished the common law distinction between invitees and licensees. Under Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski, 70 Wis. 2d 836, 236 N.W.2d 1 (1975), Wisconsin applies a single standard of reasonable care:

"A possessor of land owes a duty of ordinary care toward all persons lawfully on the premises."

Under Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995), this duty encompasses:

1. Maintaining the premises in a reasonably safe condition
2. Warning of dangerous conditions known to the owner or which, through reasonable inspection, should be known
3. Conducting reasonable inspections to discover dangerous conditions
4. Exercising ordinary care to make the premises safe or to warn of defects or conditions

C. Safe-Place Statute - Wis. Stat. Section 101.11

IMPORTANT: Wisconsin has a unique Safe-Place Statute (Wis. Stat. Section 101.11) that may apply:

"Every employer and every owner of a place of employment or a public building shall construct, repair, and maintain such place of employment or public building as to render the same safe."

This statute imposes a higher duty than ordinary negligence - property owners must keep premises "as safe as the nature of the premises reasonably permits." Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, Inc., 2004 WI 98, 274 Wis. 2d 162, 682 N.W.2d 857.

The Safe-Place Statute applies to:
- Places of employment
- Public buildings (including retail stores, restaurants, hotels, and other commercial establishments)

This premises was a [public building/place of employment] and the Safe-Place Statute applies.

D. Modified Comparative Negligence - 51% Bar

Wisconsin follows modified comparative negligence under Wis. Stat. Section 895.045:

• A plaintiff's recovery is reduced by their percentage of negligence
• A plaintiff is barred from recovery if found to be more than 50% negligent (51% bar)

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

E. Constructive Notice Standard

Under Wisconsin 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 ordinary care, should have discovered and corrected it. Cefalu v. Continental W. Ins. Co., 2007 WI App 18, 298 Wis. 2d 632, 728 N.W.2d 351.

F. Snow and Ice Liability

Wisconsin law regarding snow and ice liability is governed by both common law and the Safe-Place Statute:

Common Law: Wisconsin follows the natural accumulation rule. Property owners generally have no duty to remove naturally accumulating snow and ice. Cusick v. Duxstad, 2011 WI App 110, 336 Wis. 2d 219, 803 N.W.2d 99.

Safe-Place Statute: Under Wis. Stat. Section 101.11, owners of public buildings may have an enhanced duty to address snow and ice accumulations, particularly:
- Unnatural accumulations (from defective drainage, artificial conditions)
- When the owner has aggravated the condition
- When the owner has undertaken removal and done so negligently
- Hidden or concealed ice hazards

See Megal v. Green Bay Area Visitor & Convention Bureau, Inc., 2004 WI 98.

G. Damage Caps

Wisconsin Statutes Section 893.55(4) imposes a cap on non-economic damages of $750,000 in most personal injury cases. Exceptions may apply in cases involving wrongful death or certain catastrophic injuries.

H. Notice Requirements for Government Claims

For claims against Wisconsin governmental entities, Wis. Stat. Section 893.80(1d) requires written notice to the governmental body or its insurer within 120 days of the event causing the injury. Failure to comply with this notice requirement may bar the claim.

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

Wisconsin courts recognize spoliation of evidence and may impose sanctions including adverse inference instructions. See Jagmin v. Simonds Abrasive Co., 61 Wis. 2d 60, 211 N.W.2d 810 (1973). 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], Wisconsin. This premises qualifies as a [public building / place of employment] under the Wisconsin Safe-Place Statute. 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]

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 WISCONSIN LAW

A. Common Law Negligence

Under Wisconsin 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; and (4) damages resulted. Rockweit v. Senecal, 197 Wis. 2d 409, 541 N.W.2d 742 (1995).

B. Safe-Place Statute Violation

Under Wis. Stat. Section 101.11, the owner of a public building must maintain it "as safe as the nature of the building reasonably permits." Your insured violated this duty by:

1. Failing to maintain the premises as safe as the nature of the premises reasonably permitted
2. Allowing a structural defect or unsafe condition to exist
3. Failing to correct a condition that made the premises not as safe as reasonably possible

The Safe-Place Statute imposes strict liability for structural defects and an elevated duty of care.

C. 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 maintain the premises as safe as the nature reasonably permits (Safe-Place Statute)
3. Failing to conduct reasonable inspections to discover the dangerous condition
4. Failing to correct or warn of the dangerous condition
5. [Additional specific breaches]

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. Comparative Negligence Defense - Inapplicable

We reject any assertion that our client was comparatively negligent:

• 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 (Subject to Statutory Cap)

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

Note: Wisconsin imposes a $750,000 cap on non-economic damages pursuant to Wis. Stat. Section 893.55(4).

D. Summary of Damages

VII. SETTLEMENT DEMAND

Based upon the clear liability of your insured under Wisconsin premises liability law and the Safe-Place Statute, 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 [County] County, Wisconsin.

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 both Wisconsin common law and the Safe-Place Statute. We urge you to give this matter serious and prompt attention.

Respectfully submitted,

[FIRM NAME]

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

ENCLOSURES: As noted above

cc: [Client Name]
File

WISCONSIN PRACTICE NOTES

• Unified Duty Standard: Wisconsin abolished invitee/licensee distinction. All lawful visitors owed ordinary care. Antoniewicz v. Reszczynski, 70 Wis. 2d 836 (1975).
• Safe-Place Statute: Wis. Stat. Section 101.11 imposes enhanced duty on owners of public buildings and places of employment - must keep premises "as safe as the nature reasonably permits."
• Modified Comparative Negligence (51%): Plaintiff barred if more than 50% at fault. Wis. Stat. Section 895.045.
• Non-Economic Damage Cap: $750,000 cap on non-economic damages. Wis. Stat. Section 893.55(4).
• Government Claims: Notice required within 120 days. Wis. Stat. Section 893.80(1d).
• Joint and Several Liability: Abolished in Wisconsin. Each defendant liable only for their percentage. Wis. Stat. Section 895.045(1).
• Venue: County where cause of action arose or defendant resides. Wis. Stat. Section 801.50.
• Natural Accumulation Rule: Applies to common law claims; Safe-Place Statute may impose higher duty.