Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Tessa Lang seeks $240 from Owen Baird for a walk-in visit and basic wound supplies following a fall inside Paper Finch Supplies. She says she fell near an area Owen was mopping and that a cone she saw afterward, by the entrance, did not warn customers about the wet area on her route to the counter. Owen denies responsibility. He says a cone gave reasonable warning and argues that Tessa moved through a clearly marked hazard. 2. The parties have had an opportunity to make final submissions. Tessa asks only for the agreed $240. Owen asks that reimbursement be refused. The record contains an agreed expense record and a photograph of a cone taken eight minutes after the fall. Tessa says she has no further independent evidence about the fall or the cone’s earlier position. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Tessa proved that Owen failed to give a reasonable warning about the wet hazard; whether that failure caused her fall, including whether the record supports Owen’s claim that Tessa contributed to it; and whether the claimed expenses are supported. Under Rule 1, Tessa bears the burden of proving the facts supporting the relief she requests. Rule 33 requires the chain of duty, breach, causation, and harm. Rule 34 permits a reduction if both sides contributed, but does not relieve Tessa of proving the basis for recovery. Submissions of the parties 4. Tessa argues that the important question is not whether a cone existed, but whether it warned customers about the wet patch in their path. She says she saw a cone after falling and that the cone shown by the entrance was away from the wet area on her route. She accepts that she cannot say exactly where the cone stood at the moment of the fall. She relies on the expense record for the amount, while acknowledging that it does not prove fault. 5. Owen argues that he placed a cone and that Tessa moved through an area clearly marked as hazardous. He disputes Tessa’s description of the cone as away from the wet area. His photograph is offered to show the cone inside the store. Tessa responds that it was taken eight minutes after the fall and that the full frame shows the cone by the entrance, several steps from the route to the counter. She also accepts that the photograph does not settle where the cone stood at the moment of the fall. Evidence and findings 6. The expense record, exhibit-3-e1, lists $240 for a walk-in visit and basic wound supplies following the fall. Both parties accept that amount for this hearing. I find the amount of the claimed expenses established. The record does not identify who caused the fall, and the parties’ agreement about the amount is not an admission of responsibility. 7. Tessa’s submissions consistently state that she saw the cone after falling and cannot give firsthand detail about its exact position beforehand. Her account that the cone shown by the entrance was away from her route is relevant to the later scene, but she expressly cannot say that this was its position when she fell. I do not treat her account as proof of the cone’s earlier location. 8. Owen’s photograph, exhibits exhibit-10-e2 and exhibit-11-e2, shows a yellow warning cone inside the store and bears a timestamp eight minutes after the fall. The full frame shows the cone beside the entrance and the route toward the counter several steps away. The photograph is relevant evidence that a cone was present at that later time. Its timing and the record’s statement that it does not establish whether anything was moved limit what it proves about the moment of the fall. It does not establish that the cone was then beside the wet area, that it warned customers approaching the wet area, or that Tessa saw it before falling. 9. The submissions place the fall near the mopping area, but no account describes how Tessa fell or establishes whether she could see the cone beforehand. Owen’s assertion that Tessa moved through a clearly marked hazard is not supported by details about the cone’s placement or visibility at the relevant time. I therefore do not find that Tessa was at fault. But the absence of proof supporting Owen’s assertion does not itself prove Tessa’s claim. Reasons 10. On warning and breach, Tessa must prove that Owen failed to act reasonably in warning customers about the wet hazard. The evidence leaves the cone’s position at the time of the fall uncertain. Tessa cannot say where it was then; Owen gives no firsthand description of its position or what it signaled; and the photograph depicts the scene eight minutes later without establishing whether the cone was moved. The photograph supports the limited finding that a cone was present after the fall, not either party’s account of its earlier placement. On this record, Tessa has not proved that the warning was inadequate. This issue is not proven under Rules 1 and 33. 11. On causation, Rule 33 requires more than proof that an expense followed a fall. Tessa’s account places the fall near the mopping area, but the record does not explain how she fell or connect the fall to an established failure by Owen to warn her. Because breach and the necessary connection to the injury remain unproven, the claim cannot succeed. Owen’s comparative-fault argument also lacks proof that Tessa saw or disregarded a warning. I make no finding that she contributed to the fall; Rule 34 does not supply the missing proof of Owen’s responsibility. This issue is not proven. 12. The $240 amount is established and is a limited request consistent with Rule 6. But proof of the amount does not establish liability. Rule 35 concerns medical proof connecting injury and treatment to an event; even accepting the expense record as proof of the claimed amount following the fall, it does not resolve whether Owen’s conduct caused the fall. The decisive failure is proof of responsibility, not the size of the request. Final order 13. Tessa Lang’s claim against Owen Baird for $240 is denied because she has not proved that Owen breached a duty or that such a breach caused her fall. The expense amount is established, but no payment is ordered. Neither party is ordered to pay the other under this judgment. No additional relief is granted.