There was a dispute as to the location of the fall.
In Pareja, the parties do not dispute that there was a wintry mix and that the temperature was below freezing. Second, a commercial landowner may be liable where there was a pre-existing risk on the premises before the storm.” Id. The exceptions include that: “irst, commercial landowners may be liable if their actions increase the risk to pedestrians and invitees on their property. The court held that “.under the ongoing storm rule, commercial landowners do not have a duty to remove the accumulation of ice until the conclusion of the storm, but that unusual circumstances may give rise to a duty before then.” Id. Princeton International Properties, Inc., 2021 N.J. The matter was recently appealed to the New Jersey Supreme Court on June 10, 2021, in Pareja v. The Appellate Court initially reversed the summary judgment that was found in favor of the commercial property owner defendant and found that there are genuine issues of material fact as to whether the defendant acted reasonably under all circumstances by not doing anything to remove or prevent the black ice hazard during the precipitation. It was precipitating that morning and was below freezing temperatures. 2020), Plaintiff was walking to work in the early morning hours when he slipped and fell on ice. Princeton International Properties, 463 N.J. The New Jersey Supreme Court has re-affirmed Defendants’ ability to use the Ongoing Storm Rule to support the defense of a snow/ice slip and fall claim.
0 kommentar(er)
