Premises Liability - Ongoing Storm Doctrine

Mallon v. Target Corp. et. al., Superior Court, Judicial District of New London at New London, 2022 WL 16947691 (Nov. 8, 2022). The plaintiff brought a negligence action against Target Corp., Target Stores, Inc., Kellermeyer Bergesons Services, LLC, and B & B Landscaping, LLC. The plaintiff claimed she slipped and fell on snow/ice and suffered injuries, while she was an invitee on the premises of Target. Specifically, the plaintiff alleged Target Corp., as owner of the premises, did not properly maintain a defective condition caused by snow and ice; Target Stores, Inc., as lessee of the premises, did not maintain control over the defective parking lot; Kellermeyer Bergesons Services, LLC, who was under contract with Target Corp. to provide snow and ice removal, disregarded its contractual duty to properly maintain the parking lot; and B & B Landscaping, LLC, who was under contract with the snow/ice contractor to provide snow and ice removal and sanding, failed to provide said services. The defendants moved for summary judgment on the grounds that there existed no genuine issue of material fact that there was an active ongoing storm in progress at the time of the plaintiff's fall. The defendants relied on an expert meteorologist report, stating that that the storm was ongoing at the time of plaintiff's fall (data of which was obtained from a location approximately 14 miles from the subject premises). The defendants also relied on the incident report prepared by Target, which noted that it was sleeting outside, and the lot was not sanded or salted. However, the meteorologist report and incident report relied on by defendants were inconsistent with the evidence presented from the plaintiff's deposition testimony. Specifically, the plaintiff testified that she lived three minutes from Target, that the storm had passed earlier that day, and that she waited for it to be "fine" before she went out to Target. The Court held that the evidence submitted to the Court established the existence of a genuine issue of material fact, requiring a denial of the motion for summary judgment.