Slip and Fall Injuries / Premises Liability

Actual knowledge is straight forward, the defendant either created the condition or were put on notice of a problem. A defendant has constructive knowledge of a dangerous condition when the condition existed for such a length of time as reasonably to have resulted in knowledge and correction had the defendant been reasonably diligent. Constructive knowledge can be "inferred in various ways," including the "characteristics of the dangerous condition giving rise to the slip and fall" or "eyewitness testimony" regarding the length of the condition's existence.

Proving notice can be difficult at times, so it is important to know what it is that caused you to fall. Being able to describe the foreign substance as well as characteristics of it and the surrounding area which lead to an inference that it had been in existence for a sufficient time for the owner to have discovered it.

There is an exception to the notice requirements, available in a small number of situations. This is called “mode of operation”. If the condition is created by the manner in which a business runs the establishment should put the owner on notice that spills are likely. The classic example is supermarkets or other businesses which utilize self service.

In Nisivoccia, our Supreme Court applied the mode-of-operation doctrine when a grocery store patron slipped on a grape near the store's checkout area. The Court found a nexus between the hazardous grape on the floor and the store's mode of operation, because the store "should have anticipated that careless handling of grapes was reasonably likely during customer checkout, creating a hazardous condition."

Two years later, this responsibility was explicitly extended to snow and ice removal. Mirza and later cases discuss the imposition of a duty to remove snow and ice only after the cessation of the hazardous precipitation; none opine on the imposition of a duty before that point.

A recent New Jersey Supreme Court case eased this responsibility. In Pareja v. Princeton Int'l Props., 246 N.J. 546 (2021), the Court adopted what is known as the “Ongoing Storm Doctrine”..

In January 2015, plaintiff Pareja, was walking to work when he slipped on ice, fell, and broke his hip. The sidewalk area on which he fell was on property owned by defendant Princeton International. The night before, a wintry mix of light rain, freezing rain, and sleet began to fall. Around the time of his fall, light rain and pockets of freezing rain were falling. Even though Plaintiff hired an expert who took the position that Princeton International could have successfully reduced the hazardous icy condition by pre-treating the sidewalk, the Court rejected this argument and found generally, a commercial property owner’s responsibility does not begin untill a storm ends.

Under the ongoing storm rule, commercial landowners do not have a duty to remove snow and ice until the conclusion of the storm, but unusual circumstances may give rise to a duty before then. First, commercial landowners may be liable if their actions increase the risk to pedestrians and invitees on their property. Second, a commercial landowner may be liable where there was a pre-existing risk on the premises before the storm.

Often complicating these cases is the fact that more than one party may be at fault. Is it the owner or the tenant’s responsibility, or perhaps the snow removal contractor? This is why you need the skilled, experienced slip and fall attorneys at Epstein Ostrove to guide you through the process. While you focus on recovery from your injuries, we will identify all responsible parties who may be liable to compensate you.

Like other types of personal injury cases, the insurance companies for the responsible parties are not necessarily there to help you. You should not speak to them or provide a statement of how the event occurred until you have spoken to the trained and aggressive slip and fall attorneys at Epstein Ostrove. Saying the wrong thing to an insurance adjuster can be damaging and misconstrued to where you could reduce your chances of getting an adequate amount of compensation.