The New Jersey Supreme Court has ruled that Walmart is not liable for a slip-and-fall incident involving Haydee Gallardo, who fell in the store's parking lot during a snowstorm. The court's decision, issued on July 30, 2026, clarifies the responsibilities of commercial property owners regarding snow removal during ongoing storms. This ruling is significant for both consumers and businesses, as it defines the limits of liability for snow and ice management on commercial properties.

In this case, Gallardo fell in the parking lot of Walmart’s Union Township store on January 3, 2015, during a storm that began around 11:30 a.m. She alleged that Walmart acted negligently by failing to properly manage snow and ice conditions in the parking lot. The court's ruling centers on whether Walmart's actions created “unusual circumstances” that would impose a duty of care during the ongoing storm. This decision is crucial as it sets a precedent for how similar cases will be handled in the future.

Background

Haydee Gallardo filed her lawsuit against Walmart in October 2016, claiming that the company acted negligently when she slipped and fell in the parking lot during a snowstorm. At the time of her fall, there was minimal accumulation of snow, estimated at a trace to one-tenth of an inch. Gallardo's expert testified that the conditions were dangerously slippery and should have been pretreated with ice melt before the storm began.

Walmart had hired Land Pros of New Jersey, LLC, as the snow removal contractor for its properties. On the day of the incident, the contractor applied salt to the parking lot after the storm had started, but did not pretreat the lot beforehand. The trial court initially ruled in favor of Land Pros but denied Walmart's motion for summary judgment, leading to a jury trial that found Walmart negligent. The jury awarded Gallardo over $1.3 million in damages.

The Ruling

The New Jersey Supreme Court ultimately reversed the Appellate Division's decision, which had called for a new trial. The court ruled that the application of salt to the parking lot during an ongoing storm did not create “unusual circumstances” that would impose a duty on Walmart to ensure the parking lot was safe. Justice Patterson, writing for the court, stated, “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 ruling emphasized that commercial landowners are not required to keep their properties free of snow and ice during a storm, as established in the precedent case Pareja v. Princeton International Properties. The court concluded that Gallardo did not meet the burden of proving that Walmart's actions increased the risk of injury in a way that would qualify as “unusual circumstances.”

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for commercial property owners and their liability in snow and ice management. It clarifies that businesses are not automatically liable for slip-and-fall accidents that occur during ongoing storms, provided they are taking reasonable measures to manage snow and ice. The decision may encourage businesses to continue their snow removal efforts during storms without fear of liability, as long as they do not create hazardous conditions.

Furthermore, the ruling reinforces the ongoing storm rule established in Pareja, which states that a commercial landowner’s duty to remove snow and ice does not arise until after a storm has concluded, except in cases of unusual circumstances. This sets a clear standard for future cases involving slip-and-fall incidents in similar weather conditions.

What's Next

The ruling can be appealed, but it is unlikely that further legal action will change the outcome, as the New Jersey Supreme Court has made a definitive ruling on the matter. There are no related cases pending that would challenge this decision directly.