Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Huda Mansoor seeks AED 650 from Bilal Farooq for treatment said to have followed a slip-and-fall at Bilal’s shop in Sharjah. Huda says she injured her wrist or arm. Bilal disputes that the evidence proves he failed to warn her and asks that the request be denied or reduced. 2. The hearing record includes the parties’ accounts and a photograph from Bilal’s phone showing a wet-floor sign and mop near the shop entrance. The photograph has no established timing. The record does not include the clinic receipt or medical records themselves. Both sides have made their final submissions, and no further obtainable proof has been identified. Issues for determination 3. The first issue is whether Huda proved that an unsafe floor or inadequate warning caused her fall. Huda bears the burden of proving the facts supporting her claim. The supplied Rule 33 requires the chain of duty, breach, causation, and harm to be supported. Rule 34 permits a reduction if both sides contributed, but it does not remove Huda’s initial burden to prove negligence and causation. 4. The second issue is whether Huda proved that the fall caused an injury for which the AED 650 treatment expense is recoverable. Under Rule 35, medical proof should connect symptoms and treatment to the event. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to the harm established. Submissions of the parties 5. Huda says she was walking toward the counters, looking up, did not see a warning, and slipped on a wet floor. She argues that the photograph cannot show whether a sign was present when she fell because it has no visible date or timestamp. She seeks only AED 650 for treatment and says she has clinic records. 6. Bilal says he put out a wet-floor sign before moving it closer to make it easier to see. He does not claim that the photograph proves when the sign was present, and he cannot say exactly how visible it was to Huda before the fall. He also has no independent evidence about the floor’s condition. Bilal accepts that the clinic receipt supports the AED 650 cost, while maintaining that the receipt does not prove negligence or causation. Evidence and findings 7. Huda’s account is direct evidence that she did not see a warning and slipped while walking toward the counters (statement-3). Her final submission adds that the floor was wet and that she suffered an arm injury (statement-7). These are her allegations and account; the record contains no separate description or image establishing the floor’s condition at the time of the fall. 8. Bilal’s account that he put out a sign before moving it closer is relevant evidence that he recalls a warning being present (statement-4). But he expressly cannot say how visible it was to Huda. His final response confirms that he has no independent proof of the sign’s timing or the floor’s condition (statement-6, statement-8). The court accepts that he has given this account, but its limits prevent it from establishing that the warning was adequate. 9. The photograph shows a sign and mop near the entrance when the image was taken (exhibit-2-e2; the same image is listed as exhibit-4-e2). It is relevant to the existence and location of those items at that unidentified time. It does not establish whether they were there before the fall, whether the floor was wet, or whether Huda could see the sign. Neither side’s argument changes those limits. 10. On the treatment issue, Huda says she has clinic records and seeks AED 650 (statement-1, statement-5). Bilal accepts that the receipt supports that amount (statement-2, statement-8). That acceptance supports the stated cost for purposes of the parties’ dispute, but the receipt itself is not included, and no medical details are provided about the diagnosis, treatment, or connection to the fall. Reasons 11. On the first issue, Huda’s account supports that she slipped and did not see a warning. But not seeing a warning does not, by itself, establish that no warning was present or that Bilal failed to take reasonable care. Bilal’s recollection supports that he put out a sign, but does not establish its visibility. The photograph cannot resolve the timing dispute. Most importantly, the record does not establish the floor’s condition or otherwise show what unsafe condition caused the fall. 12. The court does not find that Bilal has proved an adequate warning was visible, nor does it find that Huda was at fault merely because she was looking toward the counters. Those conclusions would go beyond the evidence. The question is whether Huda has proved the required chain. On this record, the uncertainty about the floor, warning, and cause of the fall means she has not proved breach and causation under Rule 33. Rule 34 therefore does not provide a basis to calculate a reduction for shared fault. Issue one is not proven. 13. On the second issue, Bilal’s acceptance supports the amount of the claimed treatment expense, but an accepted expense alone does not establish that the fall caused a compensable injury. Huda identifies a wrist or arm injury and says clinic records exist, but no medical findings or treatment details are in the record. Under Rule 35, the evidence does not sufficiently connect the claimed injury and treatment to this event. The court cannot infer that connection solely from the claim that treatment occurred on the same day. Issue two is not proven. 14. Huda’s request is narrow, and the court recognizes that the AED 650 amount is not disputed as a stated treatment cost. But Rule 6 requires the requested remedy to match harm proved, and the missing causal link is material. The court cannot award the expense without sufficient proof that it resulted from the fall. The hearing is closed; no adjournment is available or warranted on this record. Final order 15. Huda Mansoor’s claim against Bilal Farooq is denied. No payment is ordered. The amount awarded is AED 0. This order does not find that the photograph proves a warning was present before the fall, that Huda was at fault, or that no injury occurred; it reflects Huda’s failure to prove the required causal links on the available record.