Earlier last month the Supreme Court overturned the Appellate Division’s Ruling in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 463 N.J. Super. 231 (App. Div. 2020). This case pertained to a plaintiff who was allegedly injured, when he slipped and fell on the defendant’s property. The night prior to the alleged incident, weather records submitted by defense counsel showed a wintry mix of light rain, freezing rain, and sleet had fallen. More importantly, at the time of plaintiff’s alleged fall, light rain and pockets of freezing rain were falling as well. The Appellate Court ruled that due to the circumstances, defendants had a duty of reasonable care to maintain the sidewalk even when precipitation was falling. Id. at 235. The New Jersey Supreme Court disagreed.
In a 5-2 vote the New Jersey Superior Court held that “commercial landowners do not have a duty to remove the accumulation of snow and ice until the conclusion of the storm, but unusual circumstances may give rise to a duty before then. 244 N.J. 168 (2021). The Court also presented two exceptions to which a duty of this kind may arise: if the owner’s conduct increases the risk, or the danger is preexisting. Id.
The Court analyzed the decades of precedent pertaining to the removal of snow on sidewalks and determined that although the “ongoing storm rule” had not been expressly adopted, the Court had implicitly come to this conclusion over the course of its history. In 1944, the Court determined that the previous general principle of non-liability did not extend to situations where landowners, through their own negligence (improper snow removal), created a dangerous condition. Further, in 1983, the Court implemented a duty on a landlord for failing to remove snow from storms that occurred earlier in the week and the night before. Mirza v. Filmore Corp., 92 N.J. 390, 400 (1983). Thus, the Court had essentially taken the stance that liability would only arise “if actual or constructive notice” was presented by plaintiff. Id.
In addition, the Court found that to impose a duty on landowners does not consider the size, resources, and ability of individual commercial landowners may not be reasonable—or even possible—for smaller ones. Id. Further, the Court had no desire to submit every commercial landowner to litigation when it is not feasible to provide uniform, clear guidance as to what would be reasonable.
This decision brings the State of New Jersey in line with its neighbors Connecticut, Delaware, New York, and Pennsylvania. Each have adopted and protected a form of the ongoing storm rule, recognizing the difficulty and futility of attempting to remove accumulations of snow and/or ice during an ongoing storm and that any duty to potential plaintiff’s should only be imposed after a reasonable time has passed since the conclusion of a storm.
As a result, commercial landowners can breathe a sigh of relief as to the onerous burden set by the Appellate Division. However, commercial landowners are not completely absolved of liability, the Court implemented exceptions to this rule. More importantly, the Court will still allow juries to hear questions of fact pertaining to when the actual storm concluded or whether the accumulation of snow and/or ice was caused by a previous storm.