Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Hana Al Nuaimi seeks compensation from Omar Haddad after a reported fall in Omar’s building. Her submissions say that she hurt her wrist and seeks reimbursement for hospital or clinic expenses. The record does not state an amount requested by Hana. Omar refers to an AED 900 request, but that reference is an argument and does not establish the amount of the claim or any expense. 2. The hearing record includes submissions from both parties and a photograph presented by Omar. The photograph shows a yellow sign beside a wet patch shortly after Hana fell. It does not show when the sign was placed. Hana’s final submission says a clinic receipt supports her claim, but no receipt or medical record was presented. The parties were given a final opportunity to address the evidence, and Omar stated that he had no further obtainable evidence about the sign’s timing. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Hana has shown that a failure to provide a timely warning caused her fall; whether she has shown a wrist injury caused by that fall; and whether she has proved medical expenses that can be awarded. Under Rule 33, a personal-injury claim requires duty, breach, causation, and harm to line up. Rule 1 places the burden on the party seeking relief to support the request with facts, records, or testimony. Rule 35 explains that medical records connecting symptoms and treatment to the event strengthen proof of injury damages. Rule 6 requires a remedy to match the proven harm. Rule 34 permits a reduction where both sides contributed, but it does not remove Hana’s initial burden to establish her claim. Submissions of the parties 4. Hana says she fell in Omar’s building, hurt her wrist, and has a medical bill. She argues that the photograph does not prove the sign was in place before the incident. In her final submission, she says a clinic receipt shows the amount paid and asks for reimbursement. The receipt itself, however, is not in the record. 5. Omar disputes that the evidence proves the sign was absent before the fall. He initially said he believed it was already there, but acknowledged that the photograph cannot establish timing and that he has no other obtainable evidence on that point. He asks the court to deny or limit compensation because the amount and connection of any clinic expense to the fall are not supported by a presented record. Omar says he does not dispute that Hana reports a wrist sprain; that is not an admission that the injury or its cause has been independently established. Evidence and findings 6. On the warning, Hana’s account that she saw no sign is relevant evidence about what she observed. Omar’s belief that the sign was already present is also part of his account, but it is not independent confirmation. The photograph is an actual presented exhibit and supports the limited finding that a sign was beside a wet patch shortly after the fall. Its timing does not establish that the sign was visible before Hana fell. The photograph is therefore relevant but inconclusive on the central timing question. I find neither that a timely warning was present nor that it was absent. 7. On injury, Hana’s submissions report a wrist sprain and a clinic bill. Those statements support her account but remain attributed assertions. No medical record or receipt was presented to confirm the diagnosis, treatment, or link to this fall. The final statement’s reference to a receipt does not make the receipt evidence in the record. Omar’s statement that he does not dispute the report of a sprain does not supply the missing medical connection. 8. On expenses, no receipt, bill, or amount from Hana appears in the record. Omar’s mention of AED 900 is not proof that Hana paid that amount or that it was for treatment caused by this fall. The court cannot determine a supported amount from the available evidence. Reasons 9. Hana bears the burden of establishing the essential chain under Rule 33. The record supports that a wet patch and a sign were present shortly after the reported fall, and it contains Hana’s account that she saw no sign. But the evidence does not establish whether a warning was visible in time, whether Omar failed to take reasonable care, or whether such a failure caused the fall. Omar’s inability to prove that the sign was already there does not itself prove Hana’s claim; the burden remains with Hana. The unresolved timing is therefore decided against the party bearing that burden. The issue of warning and responsibility is not proven. 10. The injury issue also fails on the available record. Hana’s account of a wrist sprain is relevant, and the court does not treat it as meaningless merely because it is not a medical document. But Rule 35 emphasizes the value of medical proof connecting symptoms and treatment to the event. No such record or receipt was presented, and the record does not otherwise establish the injury and causal connection sufficiently to support compensation. This is a failure of proof, not a finding that Hana did not experience pain. 11. The expense claim independently lacks a proven amount and connection. Rule 1 requires support for the requested relief, and Rule 6 prevents an award from exceeding proven harm. The court cannot use Omar’s AED 900 reference as proof of the amount, nor can it infer a bill’s contents from Hana’s statement that a receipt exists. The medical-cost issue is not proven. Because no liability or compensable amount is established, there is no basis to calculate a comparative-fault reduction under Rule 34. 12. No adjournment is appropriate. The hearing record says Omar has no further obtainable evidence about timing, and the plaintiff’s final statement did not present the receipt it referenced. The court must decide on the available record rather than assume that an unpresented document proves the claim. Final order 13. Judgment is entered for the defendant, Omar Haddad. Hana Al Nuaimi’s compensation claim is denied in full. No payment is ordered from Omar to Hana. The amount claimed and the amount awarded are not established by the record; accordingly, the award is AED 0. This order decides only the evidence presented in this hearing and does not find that Hana suffered no pain or that the sign was definitely present before the fall.