Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2021

Let It Snow

By
Carolyn Kelly Bogart

Key Points: 

  • Supreme Court of New Jersey applies ongoing storm doctrine.
  • Court held that a commercial landowner does not have the absolute duty to keep sidewalks of his property free from snow or ice during an ongoing storm.

In the September 2019 edition of Defense Digest, my colleague, Josie Scanlon, Esq., addressed the Storm in Progress Doctrine in her article “Emerging Liability Theory Provides New Defense for Premises Cases – The Ongoing Storm Doctrine.” The article discussed whether a commercial property owner could be held liable as a matter of law for failing to remove accumulated snow or ice until a reasonable time after the storm ends. This New Jersey premises liability law, while well established, did not provide an absolute elimination of liability for commercial property owners. Instead, it focused on whether or not reasonableness was the standard as it applied in the context of a commercial property owner’s removal of snow and ice from an abutting public sidewalk. 

However, in June of 2021, in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, et al., 252 A.3d 1984 (N.J. 2021), the Supreme Court of New Jersey addressed a case that had been pending since 2015. The court held that a commercial landowner did not have the absolute duty to keep sidewalks of his property free from snow or ice during an ongoing storm.

In Pareja, a pedestrian had brought a personal injury action against a commercial landowner after slipping and falling on an icy sidewalk during an ongoing storm. The matter had been heard in Mercer County, New Jersey, which is half-way between Philadelphia and New York, and known as the “I-95 Corridor.” It is an area often subject to various freeze, thaw and re-freeze cycles during the winter months. 

The Superior Court in Mercer County granted summary judgment to the landowner. The pedestrian appealed, and the Appellate Division reversed the findings of the trial court. The landowner petitioned for certification to the Supreme Court, which was granted. The judgment of the Appellate Division was reversed, although a dissenting opinion was filed. The central issue for the court was the duty of the commercial landowner to clear snow and ice from its property during a storm.

For the first time, the court considered adoption of the “ongoing storm” rule rather than the preexisting “reasonableness standard.” The Supreme Court affirmed the standard that a “landowner does not have a duty to remove snow or ice from public walkways until a reasonable time after the cessation of precipitation.” 

The plaintiff in Pareja was walking to work in the early morning hours, and he slipped and fell on a commercial-abutting sidewalk. The trial court, although granting summary judgment to the landowner, found that the ongoing storm rule applied and that there was no duty to maintain the sidewalks during an ongoing snow. The Appellate Division reversed this finding, concluding that the landowner had a duty to maintain the sidewalk even when snow was falling.

The New Jersey Supreme Court held that the standard established in the legal precedent supports the adoption of the ongoing storm rule. In addition to adopting the rule, the Supreme Court also recognized two exceptions that can create a duty: (1) if the owner’s conduct increases the risk; or (2) if the danger is pre-existing. The court recognized in Pareja that the storm was ongoing and held that commercial landowners did not have the absolute duty and impossible burden to keep sidewalks on their property free from snow or ice during an ongoing storm. Based upon the active storm condition, the court ruled that, absent unusual circumstances, commercial landowners’ duty to remove snow and ice hazards arises not during a storm but, rather, within a reasonable time after a storm. 

As in many cases, the court clarified that there are some exceptions to the rule. Those unusual circumstances are set forth in the Pareja holding and state that commercial landowners may be liable if their actions “increase” the risk to pedestrians. For instance, engaging in snow and ice removal while the storm is ongoing, thus allowing a thaw and re-freeze situation, could increase the severity of the risk and change the nature of the accumulation on outside surfaces.

Additionally, a commercial landowner may be liable when there is a pre-existing risk on the premises before a storm. For instance, pre-existing snow from a previous storm that had never been removed may create an icy base.

In conclusion, the Supreme Court has highlighted the nature of the ongoing storm doctrine. Indeed, New Jersey has not received significant snow fall in the past several years but, rather, has received mixtures of snow and ice, creating the I-95 Corridor effect seen on the Weather Channel. The ongoing storm doctrine permits a commercial property owner to wait until the storm has ended, whether it be ice or snow.
    
*Carolyn is a shareholder in our Mount Laurel, New Jersey, office. She can be reached at 856.414.6006 or ckbogart@mdwcg.com.

 

Defense Digest, Vol. 27, No. 5, December 2021 is prepared by Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin to provide information on recent legal developments of interest to our readers. This publication is not intended to provide legal advice for a specific situation or to create an attorney-client relationship. ATTORNEY ADVERTISING pursuant to New York RPC 7.1. © 2021 Marshall Dennehey Warner Coleman & Goggin. All Rights Reserved. This article may not be reprinted without the express written permission of our firm. For reprints, contact tamontemuro@mdwcg.com.