​Jennifer Moran (Partner-Madison, NJ) and Brianna Cyr (Associate-Madison, NJ) secured summary judgment in the Superior Court of New Jersey, Hudson County, on behalf of Wilson Elser’s client, a retail convenience store corporation (the store), in a high-exposure premises liability case involving a $1.5 million settlement demand and more than $1 million in claimed medical expenses. The plaintiff alleged permanent disability, including Complex Regional Pain Syndrome, after a slip and fall at the store. Her claimed damages were supported by extensive medical treatment, including multiple surgeries and a spinal stimulator implant. After nearly three years of contentious litigation, the matter was set for trial, with the plaintiff consistently refusing to negotiate below a seven-figure settlement demand.

Throughout the litigation, plaintiff's counsel sought to expand discovery, advance new liability and damages theories, and capitalize on deposition testimony from a former store employee who claimed the facility’s floors were "slippery even when dry" and that cleaning protocols were inconsistent. The plaintiff also relied on photographs purportedly showing debris and unsanitary conditions throughout the store, attempting to link the conditions to the alleged incident.

Jennifer and her team remained committed to a carefully executed defense strategy that culminated in a strategically timed motion for summary judgment on the issue of liability. They successfully demonstrated that the former employee's observations were made months after the incident and were therefore irrelevant to the condition of the premises at the time of the plaintiff's fall. They also established that the plaintiff could not identify what caused her to slip, could not prove how long any alleged hazardous condition existed, and relied on photographs that did not depict the area where the incident occurred.

Relying on controlling New Jersey law, including Nisivoccia v. Glass Gardens and Davis v. Brickman, Jennifer argued that the plaintiff's theory, if permitted by the court, would effectively impose strict liability on retail stores for any alleged “slippery” condition, without evidence of a dangerous condition or notice. The court adopted this reasoning, finding that the plaintiff's bare assertions and generalized complaints were insufficient as a matter of law, and granted summary judgment in the client's favor, dismissing all claims with prejudice.