Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Bisi Akinwale claims that she slipped on a floor Kunle Adesina had just mopped in his shop. She seeks ₦18,000 for treatment and transport. Kunle acknowledges that he had just mopped and that the stated treatment and transport cost was ₦18,000, but denies that he must pay. He says a yellow warning sign was beside the entrance. 2. The hearing record includes a WhatsApp exchange accepted as genuine and a cropped photograph of a warning sign. The exchange records each party’s account shortly after the incident. The photograph is said to have been taken about ten minutes after the fall. No medical record, description of the injury, or other proof of treatment is in the record. The parties have had their opportunity to make final statements, and no further proof is offered. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Bisi proved that the warning was not visible in time and that Kunle thereby failed to take reasonable care; and whether she proved that the fall caused compensable harm, including the claimed expense. Bisi bears the burden on both issues under Rule 1 and Rule 33. The court decides them on the supplied record, not on assumptions about evidence that was not provided. Submissions of the parties 4. Bisi argues that the important question is not whether a sign existed somewhere, but whether a customer could see it before reaching the wet floor. She relies on Kunle’s acknowledgment that he had just mopped, her message that she did not see a sign, and the limits of the photograph. She asks for the ₦18,000 Kunle agreed was the treatment and transport cost. She candidly accepts that she was looking toward the shelves and has no independent proof of what she could see. 5. Kunle argues that the sign was placed by the entrance and that no one had fallen there before. He also challenges whether the claimed harm and expense are sufficiently supported. His assertion that the absence of earlier falls proves visibility is an argument, not proof of what Bisi could see. His acknowledgment of the stated expense, however, is part of the evidence and must be considered alongside his later challenge. Evidence and findings 6. The WhatsApp exchange (exhibit-3-e1, also reproduced as exhibit-5-e1 and exhibit-7-e1) is accepted as genuine. It records Bisi saying, “I slipped where you had mopped. I did not see a sign coming in.” Kunle replies that he had just mopped, that the yellow sign was beside the entrance, and that he agrees treatment and transport came to ₦18,000. The exchange supports recent mopping, Bisi’s report of slipping there, the parties’ conflicting accounts about the warning, and Kunle’s agreement about the stated expense. It does not independently establish the injury or prove that the sign was or was not visible on entry. 7. The photograph (exhibit-3-e2 and exhibit-5-e2) clearly shows a yellow sign beside the entrance frame inside the shop after the fall. Its crop excludes most of the door, and its timing is about ten minutes after the incident. It supports the sign’s location at that later time, but does not establish the view from the entrance when Bisi entered. The court does not treat it as conclusive proof of visibility or as proof that the sign was absent earlier. 8. Bisi’s final statement (statement-7) confirms that she has no independent proof of her view and was looking toward the shelves. That admission makes her account of not seeing the sign less certain, but does not itself prove the sign was visible. Kunle’s assertion that no one had fallen before (statement-2) is unsupported by a record of prior incidents and, even if accepted, would not establish visibility on this occasion. Reasons 9. Rule 33 requires the plaintiff to connect duty, breach, causation, and harm. The supplied rules do not require Bisi to cite legal authorities or produce a particular form of evidence; they do require enough reliable proof to support the essential links. The evidence establishes that Kunle had just mopped. But the disputed question is whether he failed to warn effectively. Bisi’s report that she did not see a sign is relevant, and the photograph does not settle the question. Yet Bisi acknowledges that she was looking toward the shelves, and there is no independent evidence of the entrance view or the sign’s placement at the time. Kunle’s account that the sign was beside the entrance is also not independently confirmed as to visibility. On this record, the court cannot find that Bisi proved the warning was not visible in time or that Kunle breached his duty. The burden remains Bisi’s; uncertainty on that point means the issue is not proven. 10. Rule 34 permits a reduction where both sides contributed to an injury. It does not supply proof of breach or injury where the plaintiff has not established those matters. Because the evidence does not establish whether the warning was visible, the court cannot fairly assign a share of fault. Bisi’s attention to the shelves is relevant to the uncertainty, but the court does not find on that fact alone that she was careless or that she caused the fall. 11. The expense issue is distinct from the warning issue. Kunle’s message expressly agrees that treatment and transport came to ₦18,000. His later challenge to the amount does not erase that acknowledgment, so the stated amount is supported as an agreed expense. But proof of an expense is not by itself proof that the fall caused an injury for which Kunle is responsible. The record does not say what injury Bisi suffered, what treatment she received, or how that treatment related to the fall. Rule 35 explains that medical records can connect symptoms and treatment to an event; the court does not treat medical records as the only possible proof, but here there is no description or other evidence supplying that connection. Under Rules 33 and 6, the court cannot award the expense without proof connecting it to compensable harm and to a proven breach. This is not a finding that Bisi suffered no injury or that the expense was not incurred; it is a finding that the necessary connection is not established on this record. 12. The court has considered the parties’ arguments across the entire hearing. Bisi’s strongest points are the contemporaneous message and Kunle’s admissions. Kunle’s strongest points are the unresolved visibility question and the lack of evidence describing or connecting the injury. Neither the photograph nor the claim about no prior falls resolves visibility. The decisive point is that Bisi bears the burden and the available evidence leaves material links unproven. No adjournment is appropriate: the hearing is at closing, adjournment is not allowed, and the parties have offered no further obtainable proof. Final order 13. The issue whether the warning was visible in time, and whether Kunle failed to warn Bisi, is not proven. The issue whether the fall caused the claimed compensable harm and expense is also not proven. The ₦18,000 acknowledgment establishes the stated amount of treatment and transport expense, but not the injury, its connection to the fall, or Kunle’s liability. 14. Bisi’s personal-injury claim is dismissed. No payment is ordered from Kunle to Bisi, and no damages are awarded. This order decides only the claim on the evidence presented; it does not find that no fall or expense occurred. No costs or other relief are ordered.