Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Lerato Rasebelisoa seeks M850 from Thabo Mofolo for treatment and transport expenses after she fell at the entrance to Thabo’s grocery shop in Maseru. Thabo accepts that the receipts total M850 but disputes responsibility for paying them. Both sides have had an opportunity to address the evidence and the court decides on the available record. Issues for determination 2. The issues are whether Lerato has shown that an unsafe entrance mat caused her fall, and whether the M850 expenses are supported and connected to that fall. Under Rule 33, a personal-injury claim requires the chain of duty, breach, causation, and harm to line up. Rule 1 places the need for supporting proof on the side asking for relief. Rule 35 concerns connecting treatment to injury, and Rule 6 requires the remedy to match the proven harm. Submissions of the parties 3. Lerato says her shoe caught on the curled entrance mat as she entered the shop, causing her to fall and scrape her knee. She relies on a photo sent to her sister shortly afterward, with the caption, “This is what caught my shoe,” and asks for the M850 shown in receipts. 4. Thabo argues that the photo shows the mat only after the fall and cannot establish its earlier condition or depict the fall. He relies on his opening checklist, which records the mat flat at 8:00, but accepts that Lerato arrived around 10:30 and that he has no information about the intervening period. He accepts the receipts and says he has no information disputing that the expenses were for injuries from this fall. He asks that payment be denied or reduced because responsibility is not established. Evidence and findings 5. The receipts are presented exhibits with clear amounts and dates. Their total, M850, is accepted by Thabo. They establish that the expenses were incurred, but do not independently show their cause. 6. The photo and message are presented exhibits described as sent shortly after the reported fall. The photo shows a raised mat corner beside the entrance; the caption identifies it as what caught Lerato’s shoe. The image does not show the fall or the mat beforehand. The timing and caption support Lerato’s account, but the photo is not conclusive proof of what happened at the moment of the fall. Lerato’s account is a saved client statement relayed by counsel, not admitted witness testimony or an independently verified document. It is nevertheless a specific, consistent account of what she experienced. 7. Thabo’s handwritten checklist records “entrance clear, mat flat” at 8:00. It is relevant evidence of the mat’s condition at that time. Both parties place Lerato’s arrival at about 10:30. Thabo expressly accepts that the checklist cannot establish the mat’s condition then and has no further information about checks in between. The checklist therefore does not contradict the possibility that the mat became raised before the fall. 8. Lerato’s account says she scraped her knee and sought treatment. The receipts establish the amount, and Thabo does not dispute that the treatment and transport were for injuries from this fall. No other injury amount or additional loss is claimed in the record. Reasons 9. On causation, the court considers the evidence together rather than requiring the photo alone to prove the fall. Lerato gives a direct account that her shoe caught on the curled mat. The shortly-after photo shows a raised corner, and the contemporaneous caption links that corner to her shoe. Those pieces support one another. The photo’s limitations reduce its weight but do not erase its support for the account. 10. The checklist provides some evidence that the mat was flat at 8:00. It does not establish that it remained flat until about 10:30. Thabo’s candid acknowledgment of that gap is fair and important, but the gap does not itself prove Lerato’s claim. The court finds the claim established because Lerato’s specific account is supported by the shortly-after photo and caption, while the checklist addresses an earlier time only. The competing argument that the photo is merely an aftermath image is correct as far as it goes, but it does not outweigh the combined evidence. 11. Rule 33 requires causation and harm, not merely proof that an injury occurred on the defendant’s premises. The court does not rely on location alone. It finds that the raised mat caused the fall on the evidence described above. The record does not establish that Lerato was reading her phone; her account says she was putting it away, and no contrary evidence is presented. Rule 34 permits a reduction where both sides contributed, but there is no sufficient evidence here to find that Lerato contributed to the fall. No reduction is warranted. 12. On expenses, the receipts establish M850, and Thabo accepts that total. Rule 35 recognizes the importance of connecting treatment to the event. The receipts do not themselves prove causation, but Lerato’s account describes the scrape and treatment, the fall is established, and Thabo expressly says he has no information disputing that the expenses were for injuries from this fall. Taken together, the evidence establishes the connection. The requested amount is limited to the documented and accepted expenses, so it matches the proven loss under Rule 6. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the plaintiff, Lerato Rasebelisoa, against the defendant, Thabo Mofolo. Thabo must pay Lerato M850 for the treatment and transport expenses established in the record. No additional damages, interest, or costs are awarded because none is supported or requested in the supplied record.