252 A.3d 184
N.J.2021Background
- On January 12, 2015, Angel Pareja slipped on ice on a driveway apron (sidewalk area) owned by Princeton International and suffered a hip fracture while light rain/freezing rain was falling in below-freezing temperatures.
- Meteorological reports showed a wintry mix began overnight and light rain/pockets of freezing rain were falling around the time of the fall; a Winter Weather Advisory had been issued.
- Pareja’s expert opined the sidewalk was hazardous and could have been improved by pre-treatment (anti-icing/de-icing); Princeton International’s maintenance contractor handled snow/ice work but records were inconclusive about pre-treatment that morning.
- Trial court granted summary judgment for Princeton International based on the ongoing-storm rationale; the Appellate Division reversed, rejecting the ongoing-storm rule and imposing a duty to act after notice if a commercial landowner fails to act reasonably.
- The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed the Appellate Division, adopting the ongoing-storm rule for commercial landowners but recognizing two exceptions (owner-increased-risk and pre-existing hazard), and held summary judgment for Princeton International was proper on these facts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether commercial landowners owe a duty to remove/abate snow or ice while precipitation is still falling | Pareja: duty of ordinary, reasonable care applies during a storm; landowners must take practicable steps (e.g., pre-treating) when reasonable | Princeton Int’l: ongoing-storm rule should apply; duty arises only after a reasonable time following cessation of precipitation because mid-storm removal is impracticable | Court adopted ongoing-storm rule: no duty during ongoing precipitation, absent unusual circumstances |
| Whether exceptions to the ongoing-storm rule can impose liability before storm end | Pareja: circumstances can make mid-storm measures reasonable; App. Div. test considered reasonableness | Princeton Int’l: exceptions narrow; only where owner’s conduct increases risk or a pre-existing hazard exists | Held there are two exceptions: (1) owner’s conduct increases risk; (2) a pre-existing hazard (e.g., accumulation from prior storm) remained unaddressed |
| Whether summary judgment was appropriate here given the record | Pareja: disputed facts about notice, treatment, and feasibility of pre-treatment merited trial | Princeton Int’l: no duty during ongoing storm; no unusual circumstances shown | Court affirmed summary judgment for Princeton International because no unusual circumstances were present and ice resulted from the ongoing storm |
Key Cases Cited
- Stewart v. 104 Wallace St., Inc., 87 N.J. 146 (1981) (establishes commercial landowners’ duty to maintain sidewalks abutting their property)
- Mirza v. Filmore Corp., 92 N.J. 390 (1983) (extends commercial duty to removal or reduction of snow and ice hazards)
- Qian v. Toll Bros. Inc., 223 N.J. 124 (2015) (discusses duty in context of element-caused sidewalk conditions and prior precedent)
- Hopkins v. Fox & Lazo Realtors, 132 N.J. 426 (1993) (factors for assessing imposition of a duty)
- Kraus v. Newton, 558 A.2d 240 (Conn. 1989) (adopts ongoing-storm rule)
- Laine v. Speedway, LLC, 177 A.3d 1227 (Del. 2018) (adopts ongoing-storm rule)
- Solazzo v. N.Y.C. Transit Auth., 843 N.E.2d 748 (N.Y. 2005) (adopts ongoing-storm rule)
- Goodman v. Corn Exch. Nat’l Bank & Tr. Co., 200 A. 642 (Pa. 1938) (early adoption of ongoing-storm principle)
- Terry v. Cent. Auto Radiators, Inc., 732 A.2d 713 (R.I. 1999) (example of liability where defendant’s conduct increased the pedestrian’s risk)