The Premises and Retail Liability Practice is experienced in the handling of all aspects of retail liability claims, including but not limited to:
- Premises liability and its various subtypes (sidewalk defects, ice/snow, spilled substances, employee negligence, etc.)
- Professional liability within the retail industry and specific to individual retailers. Examples include pharmaceutical malpractice, automobile mechanical malpractice, service station malpractice and sales misrepresentations
- Retail theft and compliance with the Retail Theft Acts under various States
- Product liability and vendors endorsements
- Risk Transfer issues for landlords and tenants
- Fraudulent claims, which are handled in conjunction with our firm's Special Investigations Unit
Our attorneys also provide clients with liability prevention techniques and specialized seminars that can be conducted at the client's business location.
Members of the group share information on applicable defenses, changes in law, trial tactics and strategies, and research on issues of the law. Each office has access through our state-of-the-art computer system to a bank of briefs and other materials for the expedient and efficient handling of retail claims from inception to conclusion.
All cases entrusted to us are handled in the most efficient and cost-effective manner in conjunction with the goals of the client. At each of our offices, there is at least one shareholder and one associate who are members of this practice area. Each case referral is either assigned directly to a shareholder or, in lower-exposure matters, an associate whose work would be overseen by a shareholder in the group.
We are associated and active with retail and hospitality committees within organizations such as CLM as well as a founding member of the National Retail & Restaurant Defense Association. Our attorneys are also actively involved in the Pennsylvania Chamber of Business & Industry and the Pennsylvania Retailers Association.
Results
Summary Judgment Secured in Slip-and-Fall Case
We were granted summary judgment in a slip-and-fall case where the plaintiff claimed to have slipped and fell on snow/ice in a parking lot when getting into her car. Our client and one of the co-defendants had property lines next to each other. Based on the accident report, the plaintiff’s testimony and our expert report, we argued that the plaintiff did not fall on our property and, as a result, we owed her no duty. The judge agreed and dismissed all claims against our client.
Summary Judgment Won in a Premises Liability Action
We obtained summary judgment on behalf of two homeowners in a premises liability action. One of the homeowners called his father, the plaintiff, asking him to come to his house because he was having his roof replaced and had concerns about the work being done. The plaintiff arrived at the home and observed nails and other debris strewn about the entire property. Nonetheless, he entered the property to assess the roofing work and took care to avoid stepping on any nails. As he was leaving the property, he stepped on a nail, which went through his foot. The plaintiff asserted claims of negligence against both homeowners and also attempted to assert that, because his son requested that he come to inspect the roofing work, he was a business invitee rather than a licensee. We argued that the plaintiff was a licensee as he was a social guest who was merely providing advice to his son. They further argued that the homeowners owed no duty to the plaintiff as he knew the nails were strewn about the property and he understood the risk involved in walking there. We also argued that the plaintiff’s claim was barred by assumption of risk because as he was aware of the nails on the property and, nonetheless, voluntarily proceeded to walk onto the property. The court agreed and granted summary judgment in favor of the homeowners.
Thought Leadership
Legal Update for Premises & Retail Liability
New Jersey Supreme Court Strengthens the Ongoing Storm Rule in Gallardo v. Walmart
August 24, 2026
The New Jersey Supreme Court recently expanded the protection afforded by the ongoing storm rule, under which commercial property owners generally have no duty to remove snow or ice while precipitation is actively falling absent unusual circumstances or a preexisting hazardous condition. In Gallardo v. Walmart, No. A-65-24 (N.J. July 30, 2026), the court significantly narrowed a common avenue plaintiffs have used to avoid summary judgment, holding that “ordinary efforts” to address winter conditions during an ongoing storm do not become actionable merely because an expert later claims those efforts made the conditions more dangerous. The case arose from a typical winter slip and fall. Mixed precipitation began around 11:30 a.m. Walmart's snow-removal contractor arrived about an hour later and salted the parking lot and walkways. Because accumulation was minimal, ranging from trace to 1/10th of an inch, the contractor did not plow. The plaintiff fell approximately 15 minutes after the salting was completed. The plaintiff did not contend that Walmart failed to respond to the storm. Instead, she argued that Walmart responded improperly. Her expert opined that salting without pretreating the lot caused melting and refreezing that resulted in black ice. That theory survived two summary judgment motions and ultimately persuaded a jury, which returned a verdict of approximately $1.33 million. The Appellate Division vacated the verdict because the jury had not been properly instructed on the ongoing storm rule, but remanded the matter for a new trial. The New Jersey Supreme Court reversed in a 4-3 decision and directed entry of summary judgment for Walmart. Applying Pareja v. Princeton International Properties, 246 N.J. 546 (2021), the Court concluded that Walmart's conduct fell within the protections of the ongoing storm rule. Salting a trace accumulation during an active storm was ordinary remediation, not the type of unusual circumstance that could give rise to a duty. The court further held that expert criticism of those efforts was insufficient to change that result. Following Pareja, plaintiffs frequently argued that a property owner forfeited the protection of the ongoing storm rule whenever an expert could identify some alleged flaw in the owner's response to the storm. Gallardo rejects that premise. The decision recognizes that imposing liability based solely on expert criticism of ordinary snow removal efforts would discourage property owners from taking any action during a storm and would undermine the very purpose of the doctrine. The ruling warrants a fresh look at pending winter premises liability cases involving active precipitation, minimal accumulations, mid-storm salting, alleged failures to pretreat, or expert opinions premised on melting-and-refreezing theories. Cases previously viewed as presenting substantial trial exposure may now be stronger candidates for summary judgment. At the same time, Gallardo does not eliminate all potential liability during an ongoing storm. A preexisting hazardous condition or genuinely unusual affirmative conduct may still support the imposition of a duty. Plaintiffs will also likely attempt to distinguish Gallardo based on the nature of the remediation efforts at issue and the specific facts of a case. The bottom line is that Gallardo strengthens the ongoing storm rule by restoring it as a meaningful summary judgment defense. Now, “ordinary” efforts to address winter conditions during an active storm do not become "unusual circumstances" simply because a plaintiff retains an expert to say they could have been done differently
Case Law Alerts
Statutory Employer Immunity Bars Negligence Claim Against Youth Residential Operator
July 20, 2026
In a non-precedential opinion, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania determined the defendant residential operator was a statutory employer of the plaintiff, an employee of a kitchen contractor, and thus, was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action. While the plaintiff worked in the kitchen of a youth residential institution, he was injured when a grill he was cleaning fell on his arm. The plaintiff was an employee of the food service contractor that was hired by the defendant to provide food services at the property. The defendant leased the property and operated the youth residential institution on the property. The plaintiff filed a negligence lawsuit and, after discovery, the defendant filed a motion for summary judgment. In its motion for summary judgment, the defendant argued that it was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action under the Workers’ Compensation Act since it was a statutory employer. The trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and the plaintiff appealed. On appeal, the Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania held that the defendant sufficiently occupied the kitchen on the property to satisfy the second factor of the McDonald test. The Commonwealth Court ruled that, with regard to the second factor, an employer’s occupancy or control must be actual but need not be exclusive. The Commonwealth Court also ruled that an employer only needs to prove either occupancy or control, not both. In reviewing the evidence, the Commonwealth Court agreed with the trial court’s ruling that the defendant occupied the property and thus, satisfied the second factor of the McDonald test. The Commonwealth Court held that the defendant was a statutory employer under the Act and was immune from the plaintiff’s negligence action. The Commonwealth Court affirmed the trial court’s order.
