Though the Court does not decide the issue on these grounds, the Court notes that other jurisdictions have found that the doctrine of res ipsa loquitur does not apply to automatic doors, per se. See, e.g., Kmart Corp. v. Bassett, 769 So. 2d 282, 287 (Ala. 2000) ("[W]e do not consider it to be common knowledge that automatic doors cannot malfunction unless the premises owner is negligent in maintaining the doors."); Hisey v. Cashway Supermarkets, Inc., 426 P.2d 784, 786 (N.M. 1967); Johnston v. Grand Union Co., 375 S.E.2d 249, 250 (Ga. App. 1988); Dawson v. Hy-Vee, Inc., No. A-17-1294, 2019 WL 360149, at *3 (Neb. Ct. App. Jan. 29, 2019). Here, res ipsa loquitur does not apply because the Court cannot rule out that an intervening act, such as contributory negligence, was not just as likely a cause of plaintiff's injury.