Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Anna Wilk seeks 1,200 zł from Piotr Maj for a wrist injury and related expenses after a fall at a wet entrance. She says the warning sign was brought out only after she fell. Piotr says he placed it before she arrived. Both sides have now made their final statements. The court decides the claim on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules. 2. The court distinguishes evidence from argument. Witness 1’s testimony is admitted testimony. Anna’s entrance photo is a presented exhibit. The parties’ submissions state their positions and, where they report what a party would say, are not themselves admitted testimony. Anna’s side has confirmed that no further medical records, receipts, or other independent proof of injury or expenses are available. No adjournment is allowed, and no specific obtainable proof has been identified that would cure that gap. Issues for determination 3. The issues are whether Anna proved that the warning sign was not in place before the fall; whether she proved that the fall caused an injury and the claimed losses; and whether Piotr proved that Anna’s own actions contributed to the fall. Under Rule 1, Anna bears the burden on her claim. Under Rule 34, Piotr bears the burden of establishing shared fault as a basis to reduce recovery. Submissions of the parties 4. Anna relies chiefly on Witness 1’s testimony that, after hearing the fall, Witness 1 saw Piotr carrying the folded warning sign toward the entrance. Anna also relies on her photo, which shows a wet entrance and a sign shortly afterward. Anna acknowledges that neither Witness 1 nor the photo establishes exactly when the sign was placed. Anna continues to seek 1,200 zł but accepts that the record contains no further proof of her wrist symptoms or expenses. 5. Piotr says he remembers placing the sign before Anna arrived. He argues that Witness 1 did not see the entrance before the fall and that the photo was taken afterward, so neither proves late placement. Piotr also raised phone use, but his side acknowledged that there is no further evidence for it and does not ask the court to decide the case on that point. Piotr asks that the claim be dismissed, or that no damages be awarded. Evidence and findings 6. On timing, Witness 1’s admitted testimony establishes that she heard the fall, went to the entrance, and saw Piotr carrying the folded sign toward it. That observation supports Anna’s account that the sign was being brought out after the fall. It does not establish that no sign had already been placed at the entrance: Witness 1 did not see the entrance beforehand. Piotr’s account is a direct recollection, but it is not independently confirmed. The photo establishes that the entrance was wet and a warning sign was beside it shortly afterward; it does not establish when the sign was placed. The court therefore finds the timing unresolved, not that either account has been conclusively proved. 7. On injury and loss, Anna’s side says she can describe the fall and wrist symptoms, but the record contains no medical records, receipts, or other independent proof connecting an injury or expense to the fall. The photo does not show an injury or its cost. Piotr’s final submission refers to a receipt showing a purchase shortly after the fall, but no receipt is presented in the record. The court does not treat that assertion as established evidence. Even without it, the available record does not prove the injury, its connection to the fall, or the amount claimed. 8. On shared fault, Piotr’s side describes phone use as his impression and expressly does not rely on it as proven. No supporting evidence establishes that Anna was looking at her phone or that this contributed to the fall. The court finds shared fault not proven. Reasons 9. Rule 33 requires the chain of negligence to connect unsafe conduct, causation, and harm. Rule 1 requires the party seeking relief to support the claim with facts, testimony, or records. The wet entrance and Witness 1’s observation make Anna’s timing argument plausible, but the evidence does not establish whether the sign was already in place before the fall. Piotr’s recollection does not conclusively prove earlier placement either. The question, however, is not whether Piotr has proved his account; it is whether Anna has proved hers. On this record, the competing accounts and the photo’s limited timing value leave the issue unresolved. Because Anna bears the burden, late placement is not proven. 10. Rule 2 recognizes that reliable records can help resolve conflicting recollections. Here, the photo is a real piece of evidence, but its timing limitation prevents it from deciding the dispute. Witness 1’s testimony is useful and is not disregarded; its limits matter because she arrived only after hearing the fall. The court does not treat either party’s submission as proof merely because it is stated confidently. The evidence supports the wet condition and the sign’s presence shortly afterward, but not the decisive timing fact. 11. The injury-and-loss issue independently defeats the request for money. Rule 35 explains that medical proof can connect symptoms and treatment to an event, and Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to proven harm. These rules do not make a medical record the only possible proof, but the record here contains no independent evidence of injury, treatment, expenses, or another measurable loss. Anna’s stated ability to describe symptoms is not a substitute for proof in the shared record. Her side has also confirmed that no further proof is available. The court cannot award the requested 1,200 zł, or a smaller amount, without a supported basis for finding harm and valuing it. This conclusion is not based on the unproduced receipt mentioned by Piotr. 12. Rule 34 permits a reduction when both sides contributed to an injury. It does not require Anna to disprove Piotr’s phone-use allegation. Piotr bears the burden on that issue, and his side has acknowledged that the allegation is unsupported. Shared fault is therefore not established. That finding does not change the result because Anna has not proved the elements of her claim and her loss. Final order 13. The court finds that Anna has not proved that the warning sign was absent before the fall, and has not proved that the fall caused the claimed wrist injury or the 1,200 zł in losses. The court finds that Piotr has not proved that Anna’s actions contributed to the fall. The unresolved timing evidence and the unproven injury and amount mean that Anna has not met her burden for relief. 14. Judgment is entered for Piotr Maj. Anna Wilk’s claim is dismissed in full. No damages are awarded, and neither party is ordered by this judgment to pay the other any amount. The requested 1,200 zł is denied. This order rests on the limits of the evidence in this record and does not find that Anna did not fall or that Piotr’s account of the sign’s timing is conclusively true.