In a recent decision, C&F obtained summary judgment in the New Jersey Superior Court, Bergen County, in a slip and fall action, in which we represented the defendant, snowplow contractor. In the Complaint, plaintiff alleged that she was caused to slip on ice that accumulated in the parking lot of the subject premises and that the defendants negligently failed to maintain the premises in a safe manner. The premises were owned and managed by the co-defendants, who filed a motion for summary judgment. In response, we filed a cross-motion for summary judgment.
Pursuant to the contract with the property owner, the insured was responsible for providing snow plowing, shoveling, and calcium application services for the parking lot of the subject premises. The contract, though, explicitly disclaimed responsibility for any slippery conditions caused by a melt and/or refreeze. Additional services, such as an ice watch or further salt applications after a storm, were not contemplated by the snow plowing contract. The contract specifically stated that the insured is not responsible for conditions caused by melt and refreeze occurrences.
In New Jersey, a landowner has a non-delegable duty to exercise reasonable care for an invitee's safety. De Los Santos v. Saddlehill, Inc., 211 N.J. Super. 253, 261 (App. Div. 1986), including making reasonable inspections of its property and taking such steps as are necessary to correct or to give warning of hazardous conditions or defects which are actually known to the landowner. The landowner is also liable to an invitee for failing to correct or warn of defects that, by the exercise of reasonable care, could or should have been discovered. Monaco v. Hartz Mountain Corporation, 178 N.J. 401, 414-15 (2004).
Moreover, in instances where a commercial property owner has contracted another entity to perform snow removal activities, the snow removal company has a duty to perform said snow removal “in a careful and prudent manner.” Gonzalez v. Eastern Freightways, 2010 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 2338 (App.Div. Sept. 23, 2010). The duties of the snow removal contractor are, however, defined by the terms of the contract. Aronsohn v. Mandara, 98 N.J. 92, 105-06, 484 A.2d 675 (1984), (holding that the snow contractor’s duty extended only so far as permitted by the contract).
In our cross-motion for summary judgment, we argued that there was no duty owed to the plaintiff because there was no evidence that the insured was called by co-defendants to provide any additional snow management services outside of those contemplated by the snow plowing contract at or around the time of the subject accident. Furthermore, we argued that plaintiff testified that there was no precipitation on the date of the subject accident, and that she did not see any snow in the parking lot, prior to the time of the accident. Accordingly, in the absence of any storm to trigger the insured’s contractual snow management obligations or any evidence suggesting that it was contacted to provide any snow management services outside of the scope of the snow plowing contract, our insured did not owe any duty of care to plaintiff.
During oral argument, the Court agreed with our position and granted our cross-motion for summary judgment.