Recently, the New Jersey Appellate Court addressed the question of whether commercial landowners have a duty under the “on-going storm rule” to act and make safe their property when sleet or snow is falling. In Pareja v. Princeton Int’l Props., 2020 N.J. Super LEXIS 41, the Court found that the on-going storm rule has not been adopted in New Jersey and would arbitrarily relieve a landowner’s duty to reasonably remove or reduce foreseeable and known snow or ice hazards.
In Pareja, the plaintiff, who wore non-slip shoes, walked onto the driveway of the defendant’s property, where he slipped and fell on black ice. Deposition testimony revealed that over the course of six days leading up to the accident, there had been three storms, leaving less than one inch of snow that was undisturbed. The Vice President of Princeton Property admitted he was aware of an advisory regarding untreated surfaces that might result in slippery surfaces but was unsure if steps had been taken to reduce or eliminate ice on the property on the date of the accident. The plaintiff testified that it was not snowing at the time of the accident, but “sleet was drizzling.” The trial court granted the defendant’s motion for summary judgment finding that defendants had no duty to remove or reduce the hazardous conditions until after precipitation ended due to the on-going storm rule. Additionally, the trial court determined that no jury could find de-icing steps would have been successful until after the storm ended.
The on-going storm rule delays a landowner's duty to act after precipitation ends. Many jurisdictions reason that removal during a storm inexpedient and impractical, while others have rejected the stringent rule finding that landowners have a duty to reasonably respond to foreseeable dangers, particularly because tort law is founded upon deterrence of tortious actions and preventing injury.
Ultimately, in Pareja, the Court rejected the on-going storm rule and found that commercial landowners have a duty to take reasonable steps to render a public walkway, covered by snow or ice, reasonably safe, which cannot be fulfilled by waiting for the storm to pass. The Court held that a landowner’s liability will arise if, upon actual or constructive notice, it fails to act as a reasonably prudent person would under the circumstances to remove or reduce any foreseeable harm. The Court reasoned that such a bright-line rule would suspend a landowner’s general duty to act with reasonable care as to snow and ice hazards while precipitation is falling. However, the Court explained that it was not imposing a strict liability to landowners for every slip and fall that occurred on a commercial property. Instead, the Court listed factors to be considered in determining if a landowner has fulfilled his/her duty. In assessing whether a landowner acted reasonably, a jury could consider: (1) whether the action by a landowner would be inexpedient or impractical; (2) the extent of precipitation; (3) whether precipitation occurred during the day or night; (4) steps taken by the landowner to remove, reduce, or prevent the accumulation of snow or ice, (5) whether the commercial property was “open” or “closed”; (6) the number of people anticipated on the property; or (7) past, current, and anticipated weather conditions.
From a defense perspective, Pareja teaches us that there is no affirmative defense of an on-going storm to justify the landowner’s failure to act. A landowner is not liable merely because a slip and fall has occurred on the landowner’s property during a storm, rather the court will look to steps the landowner took to prevent hazardous conditions, both prior to and during a storm.