Poznań district court rejects compensation claim over fall at wet shop entrance

The District court in Poznań denied Ewa Wilczek’s claim against Tomasz Kania for compensation after she slipped at the entrance to Brzoza Market. It awarded nothing, finding that the evidence did not establish a failure by the shop to take reasonable precautions or connect such a failure to her fall.

Wilczek had initially sought 1,200 zł for pain and disruption and 180 zł for a damaged coat. She later narrowed her request to a modest sum for knee soreness and the coat’s fair value, without specifying a final amount.

The fall was undisputed, and the court accepted that Wilczek’s account supported her report of soreness. But it said those facts alone did not establish why she fell or whether the shop had acted unreasonably.

A photograph taken shortly afterward showed the entrance still wet and a mop in use. The court said it supported Wilczek’s account that water was present, but could not establish the conditions before the fall, whether a mat or warning sign was already in place, or how long water had been left unattended.

Kania’s incident note, written that evening, said a warning sign was out before Wilczek entered. The judge treated it as his own account rather than an independent record. Although the record described an employee message challenging the note’s timing, the message itself was not included as an exhibit.

The court concluded that the note did not settle when the sign was placed, but its weakness did not prove Wilczek’s account either. It also found insufficient support for the note’s assertion that she was looking at her phone and did not assign her a share of fault.

On the claimed losses, the court said the absence of medical records did not disprove soreness, but limited how firmly the injury and its extent could be established. A receipt showed that Wilczek had bought the coat for 180 zł eight months earlier; it did not establish its condition, that the fall tore it, or its value at the time.

Wilczek argued that a shop should anticipate rainwater at its entrance and deal with it by using a mat or drying the floor, rather than relying only on a sign. She said she did not notice a warning before falling and did not remember a mat.

Kania disputed that the evidence proved a failure to warn or keep the entrance reasonably safe. He relied on his note while accepting that its timing was challenged and that the later photograph could not resolve when the sign was placed. He also disputed the losses and asked the court to deny or reduce any award.

Wilczek said she slipped on water just inside the market on a rainy afternoon. After Kania helped her up, she noticed a yellow warning sign near the entrance; she did not see who placed it. She photographed the wet entrance, sign and mop shortly afterward.

The judgment did not establish that the sign was definitely present before the fall, that Wilczek was using her phone, or that she felt no soreness. The claim failed because the necessary elements of shop responsibility and the claimed losses were not proved to the extent required for an award.