NJ Supreme Court Narrows Storm Exception in Gallardo v Walmart
A winter fall case can turn on minutes, inches of accumulation, and the exact thing a property owner did while snow or ice was still coming down. The New Jersey Supreme Court’s July 30, 2026 decision in Gallardo v. Walmart makes that even clearer.
In a 4-3 ruling, the Court narrowed the “unusual circumstances” exception to New Jersey’s ongoing storm rule. The decision matters for people injured in parking lots, on sidewalks, near store entrances, and in other areas where winter maintenance decisions can affect pedestrian and bicyclist safety.
At the center of the case was a basic question: if a store or contractor tries to treat a parking lot during an active storm and the condition arguably becomes more dangerous, can that conduct create liability?
The majority said not on these facts.
What happened in Gallardo v Walmart
The fall happened on January 3, 2015, at about 1:30 p.m. in the parking lot of Walmart’s Union Township store. Haydee Gallardo fell during a storm involving mixed precipitation.
According to the facts described in the case, Walmart’s snow-removal contractor had not pretreated the parking lot before the storm. After the storm began, the contractor spread salt.
Gallardo argued that this made the lot more dangerous. Her position was that Walmart and its contractor did not merely fail to clear snow or ice. They took action during the storm, and that action increased the risk of injury.
A jury agreed with her and awarded her roughly $1.3 million. The Appellate Division later ordered a new trial. The case then reached the New Jersey Supreme Court, where the key issue became how far the “unusual circumstances” exception should reach.
The Court split sharply. Justice Patterson wrote for a four-justice majority. Justice Fasciale dissented, joined by Justices Noriega and Hoffman.
That divide matters because both sides accepted that winter storms create difficult conditions. They disagreed over when a property owner’s conduct during a storm should take the case outside the protection of the ongoing storm rule.
The ongoing storm rule from Pareja
New Jersey adopted the ongoing storm rule in 2021 in Pareja v. Princeton International Properties.
The rule recognizes a practical problem. During an active storm, snow, sleet, freezing rain, and slush can continue accumulating even as a property owner tries to clear or treat the area. Requiring immediate and perfect removal during the storm can create an impossible standard.
Under Pareja, commercial landowners generally do not have an absolute duty to keep walkways clear while a storm is ongoing. Their duty arises within a reasonable time after the storm ends.
That rule does not give property owners a free pass in every winter fall case. Pareja recognized two exceptions:
Unusual circumstances
This applies when the property owner’s conduct during the storm increases the risk of injury.
A preexisting hazard
This applies when the dangerous condition came from an earlier storm and remained unaddressed when the later storm arrived.
Before Gallardo, the first exception left room for debate. If a contractor salted at the wrong time, salted too little, failed to plow first, created refreeze, or made slush slicker, was that enough? The Supreme Court’s answer in Gallardo was narrow.
The majority narrowed the unusual circumstances exception
The majority held that salting a parking lot with minimal accumulation during an ongoing storm did not qualify as “unusual circumstances.”
That holding is the core of the decision.
Gallardo argued that Walmart’s contractor increased the danger by salting after the storm began without pretreating first. The majority rejected that theory as a basis for the exception on these facts.
Justice Patterson’s majority reasoned that if any in-storm remediation that arguably increases risk counted as “unusual circumstances,” the exception would swallow the rule. Property owners would face liability for trying to address winter conditions while the storm was still active. That result, the majority said, would undercut the purpose of the ongoing storm rule.
The Court entered judgment for Walmart.
The majority also rejected the argument that New Jersey had become an outlier among states that use the ongoing storm rule. In the majority’s view, the rule remains in line with the broader approach taken by other jurisdictions that do not impose a constant duty to remove snow and ice while precipitation continues.
The practical effect is significant. After Gallardo, a plaintiff cannot simply argue that a store, landlord, or contractor did something during the storm and that the condition later proved dangerous. The facts must show more.
The owner’s conduct must be truly outside the ordinary winter-maintenance response, not just imperfect or debatable treatment during active precipitation.
For a Slip and Fall case involving snow or ice, that shifts attention to the details:
Was the storm still ongoing at the exact time of the fall?
How much snow, sleet, or freezing rain had accumulated?
What did the contractor do before and during the storm?
Did the treatment create a new hazard distinct from the storm itself?
Was there an older icy condition hidden under the fresh precipitation?
What this means for injured pedestrians and bicyclists in New Jersey
Gallardo does not eliminate winter premises liability claims. It does make certain claims harder when the injury happens during an active storm.
The first question will often be timing. If precipitation was still falling, the ongoing storm rule may apply. If the storm had ended, the focus shifts to whether the property owner had a reasonable time to inspect, salt, shovel, plow, or warn.
The second question is whether an exception applies.
After Gallardo, the unusual circumstances exception is narrow. A court may require more than evidence that a contractor’s salting, plowing, or partial treatment did not work. The injured person will likely need evidence showing that the owner or contractor did something out of the ordinary that increased the danger beyond the storm itself.
The second exception may still be critical. If the hazard came from an earlier storm, and the property owner failed to address it before the new precipitation began, the ongoing storm rule may not protect the owner. For example, older ice under a dusting of new snow may raise a different issue than snow or slush created only by the storm in progress.
For bicyclists, similar timing issues may arise near store entrances, private roads, shopping center lanes, parking lots, and curb cuts. Ice in those areas can be especially dangerous because a bicycle tire can lose contact quickly, leaving little time to react. The legal analysis still depends on property control, notice, weather history, and the conduct of the owner or contractor.
Evidence that matters after Gallardo
Winter fall cases often rise or fall on proof. Memories fade, snow melts, and surveillance video may be overwritten quickly. Gallardo makes early evidence collection even more important from weather records, photos and videos, EMS logs, store and property surveillance, snow removal logs, contracts for maintenance, snow removal, etc., witness accounts, incident reports and the like.
How Amanullah Law can help
Amanullah Law assists people hurt in sidewalk and parking lot falls by investigating the facts that now matter most under and understanding the legal standards set by cases such as Pareja and Gallardo even as new developments occur.
That work can include:
Reconstructing weather and storm timelines
Identifying owners, tenants, snow contractors, and maintenance companies
Preserving photos, video, incident reports, and snow-removal records
Evaluating whether a Pareja exception may apply
Negotiating with insurers
Litigating when the facts support a claim
Deadlines apply in New Jersey injury cases, and evidence can disappear long before a filing deadline arrives. For help evaluating a winter fall injury, contact Amanullah Law through its personal injury consultation page.
Comments