Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Callum Price brings a personal-injury claim against Ruth Ellison arising from a fall at an entrance that had recently been mopped. He seeks £450 for a bruised knee and inconvenience. Ruth asks that the claim be dismissed, arguing that a warning sign was out, that Callum was distracted by his phone, and that the requested amount lacks medical support. 2. The hearing record includes a signed incident-book entry written by Ruth and signed by Callum. It records a slip at the freshly mopped entrance and a bruised knee. Callum added, “No sign visible coming in.” Ruth noted, “Customer had phone in hand; yellow sign was out.” The entry does not describe the sign’s position relative to the doorway. The parties have both had an opportunity to make final submissions, and Callum has said he has no further evidence. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Callum proved that the warning was not visible before he entered the wet area; whether the evidence establishes negligence causing the fall, including any contribution by Callum; and whether the injury and requested £450 remedy are supported. 4. Under Rule 33, a personal-injury claim requires the chain of duty, breach, causation, and harm to be supported. Rule 1 places the burden on the party seeking relief to point to facts or records supporting it. Rule 2 gives weight to reliable records over vague assertions. Rule 34 permits a reduction where both sides contributed, but requires evidence of contribution. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match proven harm, and Rule 35 recognizes the value of medical evidence connecting injury, treatment, and limitations to an event. Submissions of the parties 5. Callum says the central question is not whether a sign existed somewhere, but whether it warned him before he stepped onto the wet floor. He relies on his immediate written report that no sign was visible, the fact that the entrance had just been mopped, and the recorded slip and bruise. He accepts that he cannot establish the sign’s exact position. He says that having his phone in hand does not prove he was looking at it or that it caused the fall. He seeks the £450 that he says both parties accepted if responsibility is established. 6. Ruth says the sign was out and visible, and argues that Callum was looking at his phone and failed to notice it. She also questions the £450 because there is no medical or expert evidence supporting that figure. Her submissions refer to her experience and lack of prior incidents, and accuse Callum of seeking money vindictively. Those are arguments, not independent proof of the sign’s position, Callum’s attention, or the amount of injury. Evidence and findings 7. The incident-book entry is a presented, signed record and carries meaningful weight as evidence of what was recorded at the time. It supports that the floor had just been mopped, Callum slipped at the entrance, and he reported a bruised knee. It also records both Callum’s statement that no sign was visible coming in and Ruth’s note that the sign was out. The entry is not conclusive about visibility: it gives no position, doorway view, or other layout detail. The repeated copies of the same entry do not amount to separate corroborating records. 8. On the warning issue, Callum’s immediate report supports his account of what he saw. Ruth’s note supports that a sign was out. Neither account, as recorded, establishes whether the sign could be seen before Callum entered the wet area. Callum candidly says he cannot describe the sign’s position or whether the doorway blocked it. The submissions refer to a photograph, but the supplied record contains no photograph exhibit or reliable detail establishing its timing and position. I do not treat that reference as proof of the doorway view. 9. On the phone issue, the record establishes only that Callum had his phone in hand. Ruth’s assertion that he was looking at it, was distracted, and thereby caused the fall is not supported by the incident-book entry or another produced record. I therefore do not find that phone use contributed to the fall. The record does establish the fall and bruise, but does not by itself establish that an inadequate warning caused them. 10. The entry supports some injury, namely a bruised knee. It does not describe treatment, duration, limitations, or other detail supporting a valuation. Callum says the parties accepted £450 if responsibility is established. Ruth’s final submission challenges the lack of medical support but does not clearly withdraw the conditional agreement. I accept that the amount was agreed on that condition; it does not establish liability or require payment independently of it. Reasons 11. Callum has proved that he slipped at a freshly mopped entrance and sustained a bruised knee. Those facts are supported by the signed incident-book entry and are not materially disputed. But proof of an accident and injury is not enough under Rule 33. Callum must also establish a breach and a causal connection between that breach and the injury. 12. The evidence leaves a material gap on whether the warning was visible from the doorway. Callum’s immediate report is relevant and supports his position, but it does not establish the sign’s location or show that Ruth failed to place it where it would warn an entering customer. Ruth’s note that the sign was out likewise does not prove it was visible. The uncertainty is not resolved by Ruth’s unsupported assertion that it was visible or by Callum’s inability to say where it stood. Applying Rule 1, the burden on this essential part of Callum’s claim remains unmet. The finding is not that the sign was definitely visible; it is that the record does not prove it was not effectively visible or that Ruth otherwise breached a duty. 13. The same evidential limit affects causation. The record connects the fall to the freshly mopped entrance, but does not establish that an inadequate warning caused the fall. Conversely, Ruth has not proved that Callum’s phone use contributed. Rule 34 therefore provides no basis to reduce recovery for shared fault; however, the absence of proven contributory fault cannot fill Callum’s separate burden to establish negligence and causation. 14. The injury evidence and conditional amount do not change that result. The bruise is supported, and the parties’ conditional agreement avoids a dispute over the figure if responsibility were established. But the condition is not satisfied. Rule 6 does not authorize an award where the necessary responsibility has not been proved. The lack of medical detail is not the reason the claim fails; the decisive failure is proof of breach and causation. Final order 15. The claim is dismissed. Callum Price is not awarded the requested £450, and Ruth Ellison is not required to pay damages. The court finds that the incident-book entry supports a slip and bruised knee, but Callum has not proved that Ruth failed to provide an effective warning or that such a failure caused the injury. The court makes no finding that Callum was looking at his phone or contributed to the fall. The parties’ conditional agreement to £450 does not alter the result because responsibility was not established. No further relief is granted.