Original in-game verdict

Background 1. Ewa Wilczek seeks compensation from Tomasz Kania for a fall at the entrance to Brzoza Market on a rainy afternoon. Her account is that she slipped on water just inside the entrance. She initially sought larger amounts, but later narrowed her request to modest compensation for several days of knee soreness and the fair value of a coat she says was torn. The record does not state a final numerical amount for that narrowed request. 2. Tomasz disputes that the evidence proves the shop failed to warn Ewa or otherwise keep the entrance reasonably safe. He also disputes the claimed losses. The fall itself is not disputed. The court decides the case on the shared hearing record and the supplied rules, without treating either party’s argument as proof merely because it was stated. Issues for determination 3. The material questions are whether the entrance was reasonably safe and a warning was present before the fall; whether the shop’s conduct caused the fall and whether Ewa contributed to it; and whether the fall caused compensable injury or property loss in an amount the record supports. Ewa bears the burden of proving the facts needed for her claim. Rule 33 requires duty, breach, causation, and harm to line up. Rules 35 and 30 address proof connecting injury to an event and proof of property damage and value. Rule 6 requires a remedy proportionate to proven harm. Submissions of the parties 4. Ewa argues that a shop should anticipate rainwater at its entrance and should keep the walking area safe by using a mat or drying the floor, not merely by placing a sign nearby. She says she did not notice a warning before falling and does not remember a mat. She relies on a photo taken shortly after the fall showing a wet entrance and a mop in use. She says her knee was sore for several days and the fall tore her coat. She accepts that the knee complaint is undocumented and that the coat’s value was below its purchase price, and asks only for modest compensation. 5. Tomasz relies on an incident note written that evening. It says a warning sign was out before Ewa entered and that she was looking at her phone. He accepts that the note is his own account, that its timing is challenged, and that the later photo cannot settle when the sign was placed. He argues that the receipt proves only the coat’s earlier purchase price, not its condition or value at the time of the fall, and that the knee complaint has no medical documentation. He asks that the claim be denied or any award limited to what is proved. Evidence and findings 6. Ewa’s submissions provide an attributed account of slipping on water and experiencing knee soreness for several days. The fall is undisputed, and Tomasz’s note also records an incident. These points support that a fall occurred and that Ewa reports soreness. They do not, by themselves, establish why the fall occurred or that the shop acted unreasonably. 7. The photo is presented as showing the entrance still wet and a mop being used after the fall. It is relevant to the condition after the incident and supports Ewa’s account that water was present. Its timing limits its weight on what the floor looked like before the fall, whether a mat was present, or whether a warning sign was already in place. It cannot establish that the shop left the water unattended for a particular period. 8. The incident note is a presented exhibit and is relevant to the warning and phone-use disputes. It was written that evening, but it is Tomasz’s own account rather than an independent record. Ewa says she first noticed the sign after falling. The record also describes an employee message challenging the note’s timing, but the message itself is not included as an exhibit. The note therefore supports Tomasz’s recollection but does not settle the timing. Likewise, its statement about phone use is disputed and has no independent support in the record. 9. The receipt establishes that Ewa paid 180 zł for a coat eight months before the fall. It does not establish the coat’s condition before the incident, that the fall tore it, or its value on the day of the fall. Ewa’s account is evidence of her claim, but there is no photo of the tear or other proof of condition or value. Her account of knee soreness is also not supported by medical records, treatment, or photos. The court does not treat the absence of medical records as disproving that she felt soreness; it limits how firmly the injury and its extent can be established. Reasons 10. On the safety and warning issue, Ewa has shown that the day was rainy and that the entrance was wet after the fall. Those facts make the possibility of water at the entrance understandable and make the photo relevant. But the question is whether the shop failed to take reasonable precautions before the fall. The photo is after the event, Ewa does not remember whether a mat was present, and the evidence conflicts about the warning’s timing. The note does not conclusively prove that the sign was already out, but its weakness does not itself prove Ewa’s account. On this record, the plaintiff has not established that the entrance was unreasonably unsafe or that the shop failed to warn. Rule 33 and the burden-of-proof rule require proof of breach, not merely a possibility of it. This issue is not proven. 11. On causation and shared fault, the fall is established as an event, but the record does not establish that a failure by the shop caused it. Ewa says she slipped on water, and the later photo is consistent with water being present. Yet the evidence does not establish the pre-fall conditions or connect a proven failure to the fall. Tomasz’s assertion that Ewa was looking at her phone is not sufficiently supported to find that she contributed to the accident. Rule 34 permits a reduction when both sides contributed, but it does not shift Ewa’s burden to prove the claim in the first place. Because shop-caused negligence is not established, the court does not assign a comparative-fault percentage. 12. On injury and compensation, Ewa’s account supports that she experienced soreness, but the record does not establish a medically documented injury or a more serious limitation. The court has considered her narrowed request and her candid acknowledgment of the lack of records. Still, Rule 35 makes medical proof relevant to connecting and measuring injury, and Rule 6 limits relief to harm established by the record. The coat receipt proves an earlier purchase, not damage caused by this fall or fair value at the time. Rule 30 requires proof of condition, cause, repair cost, or loss of value. The plaintiff has not established a compensable coat loss or a reliable amount. This issue is not proven to the extent necessary for an award. 13. These findings do not mean that the court has found the warning was definitely present, that Ewa was using her phone, or that she did not feel soreness. They mean that the evidence does not satisfy the plaintiff’s burden on the necessary elements and amount. The defendant prevails because the claim is not proven, not because every part of the defendant’s account has been established. Final order 14. Ewa Wilczek’s claim against Tomasz Kania is denied in full. No compensation is awarded, and neither party is ordered by this judgment to pay the other. The fall and Ewa’s reported soreness are acknowledged, but the record does not establish the shop’s breach and causal responsibility, or prove a compensable property loss and amount. The disposition is all claims denied; the amount awarded is 0 zł.