Madison small claims court denies $240 slip claim over warning cone beside entrance door

A small claims court in Madison, Wisconsin, denied Elena Brooks’s request for $240 in injury-related expenses after a fall at a recently mopped entrance. It entered judgment for Grant Phelps, finding that Brooks had not proved an inadequate warning caused her fall. Phelps owes no payment.

The dispute turned not on whether Phelps had put out a yellow cone, but whether it gave an entering customer an adequate warning. Brooks said she noticed no warning before stepping onto the wet floor; Phelps relied on his same-day note recording a cone beside the door.

The court gave the note some weight as a contemporaneous record of mopping, cone placement and a reported slip. But it did not describe the cone’s position relative to the entrance or wet floor, its visibility from outside, or how Brooks fell. Phelps had been at the counter and had not witnessed the fall.

Brooks’s account was direct evidence of what she noticed. Yet her failure to notice a warning did not, by itself, establish that the cone was not reasonably visible. Equally, Phelps’s assertion that he provided a reasonable marker lacked independent support about its placement. The court made no finding that the cone was visible or invisible.

The evidence also failed to explain where Brooks encountered the wet floor or how an ineffective warning contributed to her fall. The court could not assume that connection merely because a slip had been reported.

The parties’ signed agreement fixed expenses at $240 only if Phelps was found responsible. It settled the amount, not liability. With responsibility unproven, the payment condition was not met, and the court did not reach any reduction for shared fault.

Brooks argued that placing a cone was not enough: it had to be readily visible to someone entering. She relied on her account and the note’s silence about visibility, while acknowledging there was no separate witness account or photograph showing the cone’s position.

Phelps maintained that the cone was a reasonable warning and that there was no evidence it was not visible. The court clarified that Brooks did not have to prove the cone was wholly invisible, but did have to establish an inadequate warning and a connection to her injury.

Phelps also argued that he was an employee, not the owner, and that any claim should be directed to the owner. The court rejected employment status alone as a defense and found no basis to transfer the claim to a nonparty.

Phelps placed the cone before customers entered. His note later recorded that a customer reported slipping and that he had not seen the fall. The record contained no store video or photographs of the entrance or cone.

The decision leaves the warning’s actual visibility unresolved. It denies recovery because the evidence did not establish inadequate warning and causation—not because the court affirmatively found the cone adequate or questioned the agreed expense amount.