Recent Decision Benefits Landlords in slip and fall cases involving ongoing snow storms

The Appellate Division recently issued a another favorable decision to commercial landlords. In Dixon v. HC Equities Associates, 2019 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 1005 (App. Div. May 2, 2019), the issue before the Appellate Division was whether the defendant commercial property owner was liable due to its alleged failure to clear the ice and snow from walkway, during an ongoing snow event.

The plaintiff, a probation officer, left her job at 7:00 pm. While walking around her office building to her car, the plaintiff slipped and fell. The plaintiff testified that it had started snowing earlier that day, while she was at work, and was continuing to snow at the time of her departure. While walking to her car, the plaintiff believed thatshe slipped on ice under the snow. She ended up injuring her hip which required surgical intervention.

The plaintiff subsequently sued the property owner for negligence. The property owner moved for summary judgment arguing that it did not breach any duty to the plaintiff. Specifically, the property owner argued that, because the plaintiff fell on snow during an ongoing snowing event and there was no duty to remove the snow until a reasonable time after the event ceased. The trial judge agreed and granted the property owner's motion.

The plaintiff subsequently appealed, arguing that there were multiple material factual disputes that should have precluded summary judgment in favor of the property owner. The Appellate Division disagreed and stated that that the undisputed facts showed it was snowing when the plaintiff arrived to and left work. As such, the property owner, "was not obligated to remove snow and ice until the precipitation stopped and it had a reasonable time to remove the snow and ice.” The Appellate Division held that a commercial landowner had no duty to maintain sidewalks free of ice and snow until a reasonable time after the snow event had ended.

The plaintiff argued that because she was required to stay at work until 7:00 p.m, during the snow storm. issues were present as to whether it was reasonable for the landlord to take certain abatement actions such as shoveling especially when it knew that officers would be working late. The Appellate Division dismissed these arguments as irrelevant due to the ongoing snowing event and, as such, stated that no duty was owed by the property.

The Appellate Division also noted that there was a municipal code, in the city where the accident occurred, which required an owner to remove snow and ice within twelve hours of daylight after precipitation had ended. Pursuant to this ordinance, the property owner's duty to remove the snow and ice would not have arisen until the following morning after the alleged incident. The Appellate Division stated that, while such codes were not binding on whether a legal duty existed, they could be instructive as to whether a defendant acted reasonably. As the undisputed material fact remained that there was an ongoing snowing event and the property owner was afforded a reasonable period of time to remove the snow and ice, the Appellate Division affirmed the trial court decision, dismissing the plaintiff's suit.

Contact us if you have any questions or would like discuss this important decision and how it affects your potential snow and ice slip and fall.