Callahan & Fusco recently obtained summary judgment in New Jersey Superior Court, Union County, in a slip and fall negligence action. In the Complaint, plaintiff alleged the defendant snow contractor negligently and carelessly maintained a commercial parking lot and failed to give proper notice of hazardous conditions causing severe and permanent injuries.
As New Jersey courts have held, in instances where a commercial property owner has contracted to perform snow removal services, the snow removal company has a duty to perform said snow removal “in a careful and prudent manner.” The duties of the snow removal contractor are, however, defined by the terms of the contract. Moreover, the New Jersey Supreme Court in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 246 N.J. 546 (2021) first recognized that a duty arises “after the cessation of the hazardous precipitation; none opine on the imposition of a duty before that point”, thereby formally adopting the “on-going storm” rule throughout the state of New Jersey. Furthermore, in Carol Smith v. Costco Wholesale, et al, 2023 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1112, the court declined to distinguish between commercial property owned publicly versus privately – effectively re-affirming the holding in Pareja.
In this recent matter, the plaintiff allegedly sustained injuries after he slipped and fell due to snow as he exited his apartment building. As a result, the plaintiff sustained multiple disc bulges, muscle spasms, hypertension/hyperflexion to the cervical and lumbar spine, and radiculopathy of the cervical and lumbar spine; these injuries were alleged to be permanent. The defendant snow contractor had contracted with the commercial property owner to begin snow removal at the request of the property owner, only. The plaintiff testified during his deposition that it was not actively snowing or freezing rain at the time of the fall, and the plaintiff did not retain any liability or weather expert to address concerns of an ongoing storm. The defendants presented a meteorologist expert report to prove that there was an active ice storm at the time of the incident, despite the lull in between showers.
It was thus argued that the snow contractor did not breach any duty owed, as there was no evidence that the snow removal contract was triggered, without evidence that the property owner requested the services of the snow contractor prior to the plaintiff’s fall. Furthermore, even if the snow contractor was indeed contacted prior to the fall, the ongoing storm rule applied, as this was a commercial residential property, and the duty of the property owner and snow contractor thus did not commence until a reasonable time after the storm ended.
After considering the motion and conducting oral arguments, the court ultimately granted the motion for summary judgment in full against the defendant snow removal contractor and dismissed all claims against them. The ongoing storm rule thus continues to be a valuable tool for defendants in weather-related premises liability actions, leading to another favorable decision for our firm.