{"issue_text":"Whether the defendant was negligent in operating the automated sliding door","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Door operation, absence of warnings, sanitizing point location"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to damages and the quantum thereof","issue_type":"mixed","dispositive":"yes","related_facts":"Extent of injuries, medical expenses, pain and suffering"}
{"issue_text":"Whether the plaintiff is entitled to costs","issue_type":"procedural","dispositive":"no","related_facts":"Partial success of claim"}
This summary was generated by AI. Use Zalari to read the full judgment.
background
Facts of the Case
Background
The plaintiff, a 57-year-old woman, sustained ankle injuries when an automated sliding door at the defendant's shop hit her foot. She claimed damages for negligence, alleging the defendant failed to maintain a safe door system and warn customers of potential dangers. The defendant denied liability, arguing the door functioned properly and the plaintiff failed to observe COVID-19 social distancing protocols.
Read the full judgment, get AI analysis, and find related cases