Plaintiff Joseph Devaney was working as a security guard for G4S at facilities owned by defendant Chemours Company. On the day of the accident, there was a winter storm with light snow, sleet, and freezing rain. During the course of plaintiff’s inspection of the premises, he slipped and fell, suffering injuries. The issue in Devaney v. Chemours Co. FC, LLC, 2024 N.J. Super. Unpub. LEXIS 776 (App. Div. May 2, 2024) was whether the ongoing storm doctrine decided by the New Jersey Supreme Court after the date of his fall applied to bar his claim.
As a security guard, plaintiff’s responsibilities including inspecting incoming and outgoing cars at Chemours entrance and exit. He would walk through the doorway to conduct his inspection. Four days before his fall, there was a winter storm that resulted in less than 4 inches of snow. On the day of the accident, January 8, 2018, there was a winter storm that began around 2:00 p.m. and did not end until around 9:30 p.m. When Chemours became aware of the icy conditions, they contacted their snow contractor and alerted their security guards.
Plaintiff’s shift began around 6:00 p.m. At around 8:30 p.m., while walking his usual path, he slipped and fell on the asphalt into the doorway between the areas he was inspecting. He suffered injuries as a result of his fall.
At the trial court level, the defendant landowner Chemours filed a motion for summary judgment, relying upon the case of Pareja v. Princeton International, which was granted. In Pareja, the Supreme Court adopted the ongoing storm rule which held that commercial landowners do not have a duty to remove the accumulation of snow and ice until the conclusion of the storm. Based upon the adoption of this rule, it “relieved commercial landowners of the duty to continuously clear snow and ice from their property throughout the duration of an inclement winter weather event.”
Based upon those circumstances of this accident, it was undisputed that plaintiff’s slip and fall occurred during the snowstorm. Accordingly, the Court found that the ongoing snowstorm rule applied and it relieved the defendant of any duty of care it may have owed plaintiff.
Plaintiff argued that the ongoing storm rule should not have been applied retroactively to accidents that occurred prior to the adoption of the rule. Plaintiff argued that contradicted “the negligence jurisprudence that provides individuals recourse if they are seriously injured due to a defective sidewalk.” The trial court judge rejected that argument.
The Appellate Division found that the trial court correctly rejected the argument because there was nothing in Pareja which required prospective application only. In fact, in Pareja, the Court applied the “newly rendered ongoing storm doctrine” to a 2015 slip and fall that had occurred during an ongoing storm.
The plaintiff also argued that the rule should not be extended to include sidewalks of “highly secured, restricted – access industrial facilities such as Chemours.” The Appellate Division also rejected that argument, finding that Pareja rejected the distinction between public and private ownership, to ensure uniformity. It declined to draw arbitrary lines for the type of property that fall under Pareja. Hence, it found that there was no reason to limit Pareja’s application to exclude facilities such as Chemours.
Based upon Pareja, remediation was only required within a reasonable period of time after the storm had ended. Thus, liability did not attach to the defendant landowner until after the storm ended, which in this case was about 9:00 p.m., well after the plaintiff fell.
Therefore, the Appellate Division was satisfied that the trial court correctly considered the entire record and found that the ongoing storm rule barred plaintiff’s negligence claim against defendant as a matter of law. Therefore, the trial court decision was affirmed, which dismissed the lawsuit.
