I tripped and fell walking into a small food market. The market had a sliding door that seemed to close rather fast when I was entering and I fell forward injuring myself. The store has a sign in the front that says “Your health and safety is our mission.” Do I have a claim for my injuries?

You possibly have a claim depending on the door and your gait.

First, the sign at the front of the store is irrelevant to your case. When a food store publishes a sign assuring their customers of their health and safety, it is not a guarantee against an accident in the market. The sign is merely an assurance to the store’s customers that the products sold are safe to consume. There are entire Departments in the Federal and State governments devoted to screening foods and warning consumers. Recently in the news, the FDA issued warnings for consumers against purchase of radioactive shrimp harvested in southeast Asia and sold in this country. The court will not allow the jury to consider the sign.

Reasonable Standard of Care for a Supermarket Sliding Door

Second, the door itself may or may not be defective. You described it as a door that “closes rather fast.” What does that mean in the context of this case?

The reasonable care standard applies to most negligence-based actions. Abrams v Bute, 138 AD3d 179, 27 NYS3d 58 (2d Dept 2016). So the issue in this case would be if the store was reasonable in the maintenance of the sliding door.

There are issues that I would want to look at even before looking at the operation of the sliding door. Had other people tripped entering through this door? Before the accident, were you injured or disabled in anyway that might affect your walk? Was the weather a factor in this accident? Was there anything or anyone else in the doorway when you fell?

But there are a number of different theories you can use in this case to prove the store was not reasonable.

Proving Liability Under Res Ipsa Loquitur in Supermarket Sliding Door Claims

In many automatic sliding door accidents, an injured pedestrian cannot immediately pinpoint the internal mechanical failure that caused the door to strike them. Under New York law, you are not required to eliminate all possible mechanical causes at the outset. Kambat v. St. Francis Hosp., 89 N.Y.2d 489 (1997). Instead, an injured party can establish a prima facie case of negligence through the evidentiary doctrine of res ipsa loquitur (“the thing speaks for itself”). There are three elements to prove a case under Res Ipsa Loquitor.

1. The Event Does Not Ordinarily Occur Absent Negligence

Properly maintained automatic doors do not abruptly close on pedestrians proceeding through an entranceway. Pavon v. Rudin, 254 A.D.2d 143 (1st Dept 1998). Under standard human experience, sensor-activated doors do not strike individuals exercising ordinary care unless there has been negligent maintenance, inspection, or installation.

2. Exclusive Control of the Door Sensor and Mechanism

To satisfy the “exclusive control” element, a plaintiff does not need to show physical exclusivity, but rather that the probability of negligence lies at the defendant’s control. Dermatossian v. New York City Transit Authority, 67 N.Y.2d 219 (1986).

Because overhead sensors and electronic sliding mechanisms are located out of reach of the general public, courts hold that store owners and their door service contractors maintain exclusive control over the instrumentality. Singh v. United Cerebral Palsy of N.Y. City, Inc., 72 A.D.3d 272 (1st Dept 2010). Furthermore, joint control between the supermarket owner and an automatic door maintenance company does not defeat the doctrine. DiPilato v. H. Park Cent. Hotel, L.L.C., 17 A.D.3d 191 (1st Dept 2005).

3. Freedom From Voluntary Action by the Plaintiff

Walking normally through a supermarket entrance does not constitute voluntary action or comparative fault that negates the inference of negligence. Brink v. Anthony J. Costello & Son Dev., LLC, 66 A.D.3d 1451 (4th Dept 2009). Merely activating an automatic door by walking toward it does not put the door under your control or make the malfunction your fault.

Key Practice Advantage: Where res ipsa loquitur applies, a plaintiff is not required to prove that the supermarket had actual or constructive notice of the specific mechanical defect prior to the injury. Ezzard v. One East River Place Realty Co., LLC, 129 A.D.3d 159 (1st Dept 2015).

But if you are unable to prove any of these elemnts of res ipsa, then you can prove the store was unreasonable by (1) violation of any building codes or (2) custom and practice in the industry.

Building Code Violation

Violation of State and local building codes governing the operation of sliding doors is evidence of negligence. Elliott v New York, 95 NY2d 730, 724 NYS2d 397 (2001). For example, New York City Administrative Code § 1010.1.4.2 references a national standard (BHMA – Builder’s Hardware Manufacturer’s Association A156.10) that power assisted doors must follow. 

The store must also follow permits for installation and must have regular inspections to follow BHMA guidelines for routine maintenance. Those maintenance records and permits could show any safety defects.

Custom and Practice

You will probably have to hire an expert to evaluate the supermarket sliding door to determine if was operating in reasonable manner as measured against sliding doors in the industry. See Alvarez v First Nat. Supermarkets, Inc., 11 AD3d 572, 783 NYS2d 62 (2d Dept 2004). The expert must evaluate the sliding door against other sliding doors that are the industry standard. Trimarco v. Klein, 56 N.Y.2d 98 (1982).

If the expert does not evaluate the door to an existing industry standard (like citing a single study or regulation that is not in general practice), the expert’s opinion will be disregarded as speculative. Devoe v. Nostrand II Meat Corp., 216 A.D.3d 738 (2d Dept. 2023).

But compliance with customary or industry practices is not dispositive of due care but constitutes only some evidence of negligence. Miner v Long Island Lighting Co., 40 NY2d 372, 386 NYS2d 842 (1976). So if the store’s door did not comply with industry standards for maintenance and operation of sliding doors, a jury would still have to decide on all the evidence whether the store’s door maintenance and operation were reasonably safe for a retail store. Sawyer v Dreis & Krump Mfg. Co., 67 NY2d 328, 502 NYS2d 696 (1986).

By James Santner, Esq.

If you have questions about a similar situation, feel free to contact us. Consultations are free and there is no fee unless we win.