Background
Haydee Gallardo fell in the parking lot of Walmart’s Union Township store at approximately 1:30 p.m. on January 3, 2015, during continuous snow, sleet, and rain. The accumulation was between a trace and one tenth of an inch. Walmart’s snow-removal contractor, Land Pros of New Jersey, had spread salt on the parking lot and sidewalks from 12:35 to 1:15 p.m. but had not pretreated the lot before the storm.
Gallardo alleged that applying salt after precipitation began, without pretreatment, created a dangerously slippery condition. A jury found Walmart negligent and awarded $1.127 million, and the resulting judgment totaled $1,328,658.59 after adjustments and prejudgment interest. The Appellate Division vacated the judgment and ordered a new trial but rejected Walmart’s argument that it was entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The Court’s Holding
In a 4–3 decision, the Supreme Court reversed and remanded for entry of summary judgment for Walmart. The majority held that a contractor’s spreading of salt on the minimal snow accumulation present here did not create the “unusual circumstances” required by the first exception to the ongoing storm rule recognized in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties. Absent such circumstances, a commercial landowner’s duty to remove snow and ice arises within a reasonable time after a storm ends, not while precipitation remains ongoing.
The Court rejected the view that the exception applies whenever a factfinder could conclude that remediation increased a pedestrian’s risk. That interpretation, the majority reasoned, would eliminate Pareja’s separate “unusual circumstances” requirement and discourage landowners from attempting remediation during storms. The Court also asked the Committee on Model Civil Jury Charges to revise Model Civil Jury Charge 5.20B to conform to Pareja.
Justice Fasciale, joined by Justices Noriega and Hoffman, dissented and would have upheld the jury’s verdict. The dissent maintained that risk-increasing conduct itself satisfies Pareja’s unusual-circumstances exception, that Pareja should not govern an accident predating that decision, and that its ongoing storm rule concerned public walkways rather than a private commercial parking lot.
Key Takeaways
- Ordinary salting during an ongoing storm, even if allegedly ineffective or risk-increasing, does not alone establish the “unusual circumstances” required by Pareja’s first exception.
- The majority treated the existence of a duty as a legal question and held that Walmart was entitled to summary judgment because the record presented no genuine factual dispute establishing unusual circumstances.
- The sharply divided Court disagreed over the meaning, retroactive application, and scope of Pareja, with the three dissenters arguing that the jury’s negligence verdict should stand.
Why It Matters
The decision narrows the circumstances in which commercial landowners may owe a duty for snow-and-ice conditions while a storm is ongoing. Evidence that a landowner or contractor attempted remediation and allegedly made conditions worse is insufficient unless the setting also qualifies as unusual under Pareja.
The ruling also signals that New Jersey’s model jury instruction must preserve the unusual-circumstances limitation. The dissent, however, highlights unresolved disagreement over whether the ongoing storm rule should apply retroactively and whether it extends from public sidewalks to private commercial parking lots.