Sharjah civil court denies AED 650 treatment claim over shop entrance slip-and-fall

The civil court in Sharjah denied Huda Mansoor’s claim against Bilal Farooq for AED 650 in treatment expenses following a slip-and-fall at his shop. It held that the evidence did not sufficiently establish that Bilal’s conduct caused the fall or connect the claimed injury and treatment to the incident.

No payment was ordered. Although Bilal accepted AED 650 as the stated treatment cost, the court found that agreement on the amount did not establish a right to reimbursement.

The order did not find that an adequate warning was present before the fall, that Huda was at fault, or that no injury occurred. The denial rested on missing proof of the causal links required for recovery.

The court applied the supplied Rule 33, requiring support for the chain of duty, breach, causation and harm. Huda bore the burden of proving the facts supporting her claim, including a failure to take reasonable care and a connection between that failure and the fall.

Her account supported that she slipped and did not see a warning while walking toward the counters. However, not seeing a sign did not itself establish that none was present or that Bilal had failed to take reasonable care. The record also lacked a separate description or image establishing the floor’s condition at the relevant time.

Bilal’s recollection that he had put out a sign was relevant, but he could not establish how visible it was to Huda. His phone photograph showed a wet-floor sign and mop near the entrance at an unidentified time; it could not establish their presence before the fall, the floor’s condition, or whether Huda could see the sign.

The court declined to attribute fault to Huda merely because she was looking toward the counters. Since breach and causation were not proved, Rule 34, which permits a reduction where both sides contributed, provided no basis to calculate shared responsibility.

On medical causation, the formal judgment recorded that neither the clinic receipt nor medical records themselves were included in the hearing record. Bilal’s acceptance supported the stated cost, but no diagnosis or treatment details linked it to the fall. Under Rules 35 and 6, the court could not infer that connection merely from treatment reportedly occurring the same day or award an expense without proof of resulting harm.

Huda said she entered as a customer, encountered a wet floor and slipped without seeing a warning. She argued that the photograph lacked a date or timestamp connecting it to the accident and therefore could not prove that an adequate warning was present.

She sought only the AED 650 treatment expense and said she had clinic records. During the hearing, she identified no further obtainable evidence beyond her injury and those records.

Bilal said he placed the sign before the fall and later moved it closer to make it easier to see. He maintained that moving it was not an admission that no warning had existed, while acknowledging that the photograph could not independently establish its timing or visibility. He requested denial or reduction of the claim.

The dispute arose after Huda entered Bilal’s stationery shop in Sharjah to buy envelopes. She reported slipping near the entrance and receiving treatment that day for a wrist or arm injury.

Both parties completed their final submissions without identifying further obtainable proof. The court closed the hearing and found no adjournment available or warranted on the record.

The outcome leaves the treatment claim unpaid because essential links were not proved. It does not resolve the disputed warning timing in Bilal’s favour or establish that Huda suffered no injury.