CYNTHIA JOHNSON VS. BRANDYWINE OPERATING PARTNERSHIP, LP (L-4362-14, CAMDEN COUNTY AND STATEWIDE), A-4791-15T4

Cynthia Johnson slipped on black ice in Brandywine's large commercial parking lot near metal drainage gates on December 14, 2014; prior days saw precipitation and temperature fluctuations above and below freezing.
Cynthia reported the fall; Brandywine's building engineer, Jeff Hoffner, inspected the site; an incident report was prepared by Kathy Barker but was missing some information.
Hoffner recalled tenant complaints about icing elsewhere in the lot, observed safety cones at the scene (which he said he did not place), and testified that contacting the snow/ice contractor was Brandywine’s responsibility.
Plaintiffs argued prior complaints and site features (grading directing water to drains) gave defendants constructive notice and created triable issues on notice and causation.
Defendants moved for summary judgment asserting lack of notice and inability to identify the ice’s source; the trial court granted summary judgment, finding plaintiffs’ proof speculative and insufficient to show notice.
The Appellate Division reversed, holding the record contained sufficient evidence for a reasonable jury to find defendants had constructive notice and failed to remediate the known icing problem.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether defendant had constructive notice of the icy condition	Prior tenant complaints, presence of cones, engineer’s awareness, grading and weather reports show ice existed long enough to have been discovered and remedied	Complaints did not relate to the specific area of the fall; plaintiffs cannot identify ice source; proof is speculative	Reversed: triable issue exists—evidence could support constructive notice for a jury
Whether summary judgment was appropriate	Factual disputes about weather, grading, prior complaints, and remedial efforts defeat summary judgment	Evidence insufficient as a matter of law to impose liability; no specific notice of that spot	Reversed: de novo review shows genuine issues of material fact requiring trial
Whether grading/drainage could have caused recurring icing (causation)	Lot grading directing water to drains near the fall supports inference that runoff could freeze and cause the hazard	Defendants dispute grading/ponding tendencies and freezing-rain allegations	Held: factual dispute exists about grading and weather that bears on proximate cause—jury issue
Whether spoliation claim required reversal of summary judgment	Alleged missing portion of incident report impaired plaintiffs’ case	Defendants later supplied the missing information and dispute the claim	Court declined to decide spoliation on appeal; plaintiffs may renew before trial

Angland v. Mountain Creek Resort, Inc., 213 N.J. 573 (de novo review and summary judgment standard) (discussed)
Brill v. Guardian Life Ins. Co., 142 N.J. 520 (summary judgment standard) (discussed)
Qian v. Toll Bros. Inc., 223 N.J. 124 (commercial owner duty to remove snow/ice and standard of reasonable diligence)
Mirza v. Filmore Corp., 92 N.J. 390 (duty to remove snow/ice on commercial property)
Gray v. Caldwell Wood Prods., Inc., 425 N.J. Super. 496 (App. Div.) (notice of icy conditions is typically a jury question)
Troupe v. Burlington Coat Factory Warehouse Corp., 443 N.J. Super. 596 (App. Div.) (constructive notice requires condition to exist long enough that reasonable diligence would have discovered it)
Jerista v. Murray, 185 N.J. 175 (presumption against negligence; plaintiff’s burden)
Rosenblit v. Zimmerman, 166 N.J. 391 (spoliation doctrine explained)