Brown v. Scrivner, Inc.

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• stating that “[a]utomatic doors do not, in the ordinary course of things, cause injury to those who pass through them”
• noting that the evidence reflects that the automatic door “slammed shut, striking [plaintiff’s] left shoulder and elbow”
• finding that the closing of automatic doors was an event upon which a reasonable person could conclude that “it is more likely than not that there was negligence associated with the automatic door’s malfunction.”
• reversing summary judgment and holding that application of res ipsa loquitur in action against grocer arising from injury to patron allegedly caused by malfunctioning automatic door was not defeated by evidence suggesting that (1
• reversing summary judgment and holding that application of res ipsa loquitur in action against grocer arising from injury to patron allegedly caused by malfunctioning automatic door was not defeated by evidence suggesting that (1) doors were not regularly inspected, and (2
• doctrine applied where plaintiff injured by malfunctioning automatic door

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).