Madison small claims court denies $240 injury claim over disputed warning cone

The small claims court in Madison denied Tessa Lang’s request for $240 from Owen Baird for injury-related expenses following a fall inside Paper Finch Supplies. The court found the expense amount established, but held that Lang had not proved that Baird breached a duty or that any breach caused her fall.

No payment was ordered by either party, and no additional relief was granted. The decision rested on insufficient proof of responsibility, rather than a finding that Baird’s warning was adequate or that Lang caused the accident.

The central uncertainty was where the warning cone stood when Lang fell and whether it could alert customers approaching the wet area. Applying Rule 1, the court held that Lang bore the burden of proving the facts supporting her request. Rule 33 required proof of duty, breach, causation and harm—the connection between unreasonable conduct and the injury.

Lang said she saw the cone only after falling and could not describe its exact earlier position. Baird likewise provided no firsthand description of its placement or what it signaled at the relevant time.

Baird’s photograph showed a yellow cone inside the shop eight minutes after the fall. The full frame placed it beside the entrance, several steps from the route toward the counter. However, the photograph did not establish whether anything had been moved, so the court treated it only as evidence that a cone was present afterward.

The submissions placed the fall near the mopping area, but did not explain how Lang fell or establish whether she could see the cone beforehand. The court therefore found neither an inadequate warning nor the necessary causal connection proved.

It also rejected Baird’s assertion that Lang had moved through a clearly marked hazard as unsupported. No finding of fault against Lang was made. Rule 34, which permits a reduction where both parties contributed, could not supply the missing proof of Baird’s responsibility.

The agreed expense record established $240 for a walk-in visit and basic wound supplies. The court explained that agreement on the amount was not an admission of liability; accepting those expenses did not resolve who caused the fall.

Lang argued that the issue was not whether a cone existed, but whether it warned customers about the wet patch on their route to the counter. She maintained that the cone shown by the entrance was away from that area, while acknowledging that she could not establish its position at the moment of her fall.

Baird sought refusal of reimbursement, arguing that placing the cone discharged his duty to warn and that Lang had proceeded through a clearly marked hazard. He disputed her description of the cone’s location and relied on the photograph, while stressing that she had to prove her claim.

Lang responded that the photograph’s timing prevented it from establishing an effective warning before the accident. She acknowledged that the expense record proved only the amount and that she had no further independent evidence.

Baird worked at Paper Finch Supplies and placed a yellow warning cone by the entrance before mopping near the counter. Lang, a customer entering the shop, fell near the mopping area. Responsibility for the agreed expenses remained disputed.

The outcome turns on the limits of the evidence about warning adequacy and causation. It leaves the $240 expense amount established, but awards nothing and makes no affirmative finding that either the warning was sufficient or Lang contributed to her fall.