Trenton, NJ – The New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday ruled in favor of Walmart, holding that a snow removal contractor’s decision to spread salt on a parking lot during an ongoing winter storm did not create the “unusual circumstances” needed to impose liability on a commercial property owner before the storm had ended.
The decision came in Haydee Gallardo v. Walmart, a case stemming from a January 2015 slip-and-fall at Walmart’s Union Township store. The Court reversed lower court rulings that allowed the case to proceed under an exception to New Jersey’s ongoing storm rule.
According to the opinion, Haydee Gallardo slipped and fell around 1:30 p.m. while mixed precipitation continued to fall. A snow removal contractor hired by Walmart had applied salt to the parking lot between approximately 12:35 p.m. and 1:15 p.m., but had not pretreated the lot before the storm began because accumulation had not yet reached the point where plowing was necessary.
Court clarifies ongoing storm rule
Writing for the majority, Justice Lee A. Solomon Patterson said the appeal focused on whether the contractor’s actions created “unusual circumstances” under the exception recognized in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, the Court’s 2021 decision formally adopting New Jersey’s ongoing storm rule.
Under that rule, commercial landowners generally are not required to keep sidewalks and parking areas free of snow and ice while precipitation is actively falling. Instead, their duty arises within a reasonable time after the storm ends.
The Court emphasized that the exception applies only when a property owner’s actions actually increase the danger beyond what naturally exists during the storm.
“A snow removal contractor’s spreading of salt on the minimal accumulation of snow at issue does not give rise to ‘unusual circumstances’ warranting the imposition of a duty on a commercial landowner during an ongoing storm,” the Court held.
Earlier verdict overturned
Gallardo filed suit in 2016, alleging Walmart acted negligently in maintaining the parking lot. Her snow and ice management expert testified that the lot should have been pretreated before precipitation began.
Following a five-day trial, a jury found Walmart negligent and awarded Gallardo damages. After adding prejudgment interest and adjusting the verdict, the trial court entered judgment totaling $1,328,658.59.
The Appellate Division later vacated that judgment and ordered a new trial but concluded factual questions remained about whether Walmart’s conduct made the parking lot more dangerous.
The Supreme Court disagreed, concluding that merely applying salt during the storm, without pretreatment, did not satisfy the narrow “unusual circumstances” exception established in Pareja.
Why it matters
The decision further defines the scope of New Jersey’s ongoing storm rule and provides guidance for commercial property owners, businesses and snow removal contractors throughout the state.
By holding that routine salting during an active storm does not, by itself, create liability, the Court reaffirmed that commercial landowners generally are not required to eliminate every snow- or ice-related hazard while precipitation is still falling. The ruling also narrows the circumstances under which plaintiffs may rely on the “unusual circumstances” exception recognized in Pareja.
About the case
The case is Haydee Gallardo v. Walmart (A-65-24), decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court on Thursday. Justice Patterson authored the majority opinion. The Court reviewed whether Walmart’s snow removal efforts triggered an exception to the ongoing storm rule and ultimately held that they did not.
Related: New Jersey Supreme Court, Walmart, ongoing storm rule, slip and fall, Union Township
