stage_1_response = """ name of parties: LLC "Cesla Property Group" (Claimant) vs. PJSC "T Plus" (Defendant) date of claim filing: 10 March 2023 Claim validity: True **Evidence indicated in the claim:** - A purchase agreement dated April 11, 2022, between "SZHI" LLC and the claimant. - Contract No. 1-AVR dated August 7, 2022, with "Magistral" LLC for emergency restoration work. - Completion of work certificate dated September 30, 2022, between the claimant and "Magistral" LLC. - Invoice No. 65 dated October 5, 2022. - A claim from "Cesla Property Group" LLC to the defendant dated August 17, 2022. - A response letter from the defendant dated September 16, 2022. - A pre-trial claim from the claimant dated January 11, 2023. - A letter from "Magistral" LLC dated August 8, 2022. **Facts substantiated by evidence according to the claimant:** - The claimant is the owner of the electrical equipment listed in the claim. - The cable damage occurred as a result of excavation works conducted without adhering to established regulations. - The claimant incurred actual losses amounting to 116,950 rubles and demands their compensation, as well as a penalty for the delay in payment. - The defendant conducted excavation works in this area. **Conclusion** Thus, in accordance with the criteria for the presumption of prima facie, the claim is conditionally substantiated, as according to the claimant's version, they are the owner of the underground cable that was damaged as a result of the defendant’s excavation works. Therefore, the court decides to request the defendant’s position regarding the claim requirements. """ stage_2_response = """ Response validity: True Prima Facie refuted: True The defendant claims that the plaintiff has not provided sufficient evidence to prove that the cable damage occurred due to the defendant's actions. The objection concerns the lack of direct evidence, such as photographs, video recordings, or joint inspection reports of the damage site. The defendant raises the issue of the unproven causality between the defendant's actions and the cable damage. The defendant disputes the plaintiff's demand for penalties, arguing that penalties and compensation for damages cannot be simultaneously claimed for the same violation. **Conclusion** The defendant disputes the claimant's claims, referring to the fact that the defendant is not the cause of harm, and also points to the failure to prove the fact of damage to the cable, as well as the fault of the defendant, in connection with which the defendant's response is recognized conditionally justified in accordance with the criteria for rebuttal of the presumption prima facie. In view of the foregoing, the Court gives the Claimant an opportunity to explain its case. """ stage_3_response_given = """ Response given: True **Review of Added Evidence and Arguments** The claimant provides an operational log entry as evidence of the cable damage due to grounding, not a planned shutdown, thereby indicating an unexpected incident that resulted in cable damage. This log entry directly addresses the defendant's claim of insufficient evidence by providing an official record of the incident. The claimant cites a letter from LLC "Magistral" and provides photographs from the excavation site as concrete evidence that the cable damage was a result of excavation works. This aligns with the requirement to prove that the damage was not merely alleged but substantiated with physical evidence. The claimant argues that the essence of civil law regulation and the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation allows for the establishment of facts with any admissible means. They assert that the absence of an act (formal document) does not preclude the recovery of damages as long as there is convincing evidence of the fact of damage and its extent. The claimant suggests an adjustment to their claims depending on PJSC "T Plus"'s clarification regarding the involvement of JSC "Samara Cable Company" in the incident. This demonstrates the claimant's willingness to refine their legal stance based on the evidence and clarifications provided during the legal process. **Evaluation of the Claimant’s Position** The claimant has successfully countered the defendant's argument regarding the insufficiency of evidence by providing detailed documentation, including an operational log entry, a third-party letter, and photographic evidence of the damage and its cause. The additional evidence provided by the claimant strengthens the causal link between the excavation works and the cable damage. Moreover, the claimant's reliance on legal provisions regarding the recovery of damages and the arbitration procedural code supports their position that formal documentation (like an act) is not the sole means to establish facts or liability. The claimant's approach to potentially adjusting their claims based on further clarifications demonstrates a reasoned and flexible legal strategy, focusing on pinpointing responsibility based on factual determinations. **Conclusion** In order to comply with the adversarial principle, the court allows the Defendant to provide his explanations of the case. """ stage_3_response_not_given = """ Response given: False """ stage_4_response_given = """ Response given: True The defendant claims that the claimant has failed to provide comprehensive evidence to substantiate the claims of damages. The only document presented — a letter from "Magistral" LLC — does not meet the requirement for providing diverse and convincing evidence. There is also an absence of an investigation report detailing the causes of the alleged accident, which constitutes a procedural violation and casts doubt on the validity of the claim. According to the defendant, the claimant has not provided sufficient evidence as required by Article 65 of the Arbitration Procedure Code of the Russian Federation, which should include photographs, video materials, and a joint inspection report. The absence of an investigation report violates the "Rules for the Investigation of Causes of Accidents in Power Engineering". **Conclusion** With the court understanding the positions of the claimant and the defendant regarding the case, the court recognizes the case as ready for the analysis of evidence and arguments from the parties and for rendering a decision. """ stage_4_response_not_given = """ Response given: False """ stage_5_case_fable = """ ### Analysis of Evidence from Parties **Ownership Confirmation and Damage** Direct Fact: LLC "Cesla Property Group" confirmed its ownership of the cable and electrical infrastructure through a sales contract. Direct Fact: The fact of cable damage on August 6, 2022, is confirmed by the operational journal and photographs from the site of the works. **Repair Works** Direct Fact: The contract for emergency restoration works was signed the day after the damage was discovered, indicating the claimant's immediate action to remedy the damage. Direct Fact: The completion act and full payment for the work testify to the completion of the repair works. **Liability and Fault** Indirect Fact: The connection between the excavation works and the cable damage is inferred based on the statement from the operator "Magistral," who noted the cable damage during the excavation works. Indirect Fact: PJSC "T Plus"’s response does not contain a denial of the fact of damage caused by their actions but disputes the sufficiency of evidence. **Contradictions and Their Resolution** Contradiction: The defendant claims that additional forms of evidence, such as an investigation report and other materials, are necessary. Resolution of Contradictions: The claimant relies on the admissibility of any means of proof under the Russian Arbitration Procedure Code, indicating that the existing evidence (photos, journals) is sufficient to confirm the fact of damage. **Collected Materials and Their Significance** Direct Fact: The collected materials (photographs, operational records) directly confirm the fact and circumstances of the damage, presenting strong evidence in favor of the claimant. Direct Fact: The absence of an investigation act, while being a formal violation, does not dispute the very fact of damage, confirmed by other materials. **Case Fable** Events preceding the incident: LLC "Cesla Property Group" owns and manages various components of the electrical network, including a 10 kV cable line. The ownership of the cable is confirmed by the sales contract dated April 11, 2022. The incident and its immediate consequences: On August 6, 2022, the dispatcher from "Magistral" received a report of damage to a 10 kV cable line. The damage occurred as a result of excavation works carried out in the area where the cable was located. According to the evidence presented, the excavation works that day were conducted by employees or contractors of PJSC "T Plus", as confirmed by the operational journal and photographs from the site of the works. Claimant's reaction and repair works: The day after the damage was discovered, "Cesla Property Group" entered into a contract with "Magistral LLC" for emergency repairs. The works were successfully completed, as confirmed by the completion act and full payment for the repair costs. """ stage_6_ideal_model = """ ### Ideal Behavior Chronology of the Parties **Before the Excavation Works** - Work Planning: Defendant (PJSC "T Plus") was required to conduct thorough planning for the upcoming excavation works, which included studying and marking all underground communications in the area of the upcoming works. Claimant (LLC "Cesla Property Group") should have regularly updated and provided the defendant with maps of underground communications to prevent any damages. - Obtaining Permits: Defendant was supposed to approach the relevant authorities to obtain all necessary permits for conducting the excavation works, notifying all interested owners of the infrastructure about the planned works. - Coordination with the Claimant: Defendant was required to notify the claimant about the upcoming works, providing precise timing and location so the claimant could take measures to protect their infrastructure or monitor the process. **During the Excavation Works** - Adherence to Safety Techniques: Defendant was required to strictly follow safety techniques, using appropriate equipment and methods to minimize the risk of damaging underground communications. Claimant could have sent a representative to the site of the works to observe and, if necessary, intervene promptly to prevent potential damage. **After Completion of the Works** - Inspection and Confirmation of Infrastructure Integrity: After the completion of the excavation works, the defendant was supposed to conduct a thorough inspection of the area together with the claimant's representatives to ensure there was no damage. In the case of any damages found, the defendant was immediately required to commence repairs at their own expense or compensate the claimant for the repair costs. **Long-term Cooperation** - Establishment of Ongoing Dialogue: The claimant and defendant were expected to establish a mechanism for ongoing communication and information exchange regarding underground infrastructure to prevent similar incidents in the future. """ stage_7_final_judgement = """ # Judgement JudgeAI Court [2024-05-04] LLC Cesla Property Group vs. PJSC "T Plus" Case Title: LLC Cesla Property Group vs. PJSC "T Plus" on Property Damage Compensation ### Introduction - **Description of Parties**: LLC Cesla Property Group, the claimant, is a property owner alleging damage due to excavation works. PJSC "T Plus", the defendant, is accused of causing this damage during their operations. Magistral LLC is involved as a third party, responsible for rehabilitation work on the claimant's property. - **Substance of Plaintiff's Claims**: The claimant seeks compensation for damages incurred to their property, allegedly due to the defendant's excavation works. They present evidence of ownership, damage occurrence, and repair costs. - **Presented Evidence**: The claimant provided contracts, invoices, and correspondence to substantiate their claims. The defendant challenges the sufficiency and relevance of this evidence, particularly the lack of a joint inspection report and an investigation report. ### Analysis of Evidence and Factual Circumstances - **Evaluation of Evidence**: The evidence presented by the claimant establishes ownership and the occurrence of damage. However, the direct cause of the damage and the defendant's responsibility are contested. The defendant's response emphasizes procedural and legal standards, challenging the claimant's evidence's sufficiency. - **Factual Circumstances of the Case**: The facts establish that damage occurred to the claimant's property and repair work was undertaken. The linkage of the defendant to the excavation works and the damage incurred is supported but not directly evidenced. ### Justification of the Decision - **Application of Law**: The legal framework involves the Civil Code of the Russian Federation, particularly provisions related to property damage and compensation. The absence of a joint inspection report and an investigation report, as highlighted by the defendant, does not negate the presence of convincing evidence of the fact of damage and its extent. - **Assessment of Parties' Arguments**: The claimant's arguments and evidence are found to be more compelling, establishing a reasonable linkage between the defendant's actions and the damage incurred. The defendant's procedural arguments, while valid, do not sufficiently counter the established link between their actions and the damage. - **Nash Equilibrium**: The analysis suggests that both parties could have engaged in more cooperative behavior to avoid litigation. The defendant could have participated in a joint inspection and possibly mitigated the claimant's damages earlier. The claimant could have sought to engage the defendant more constructively before proceeding to litigation. ## Conclusion and Resolutive Part - **Final Decision**: The court finds in favor of the claimant, LLC Cesla Property Group, and orders PJSC "T Plus" to compensate for the documented repair costs incurred due to the damage. The evidence presented is deemed sufficient to establish the defendant's liability for the damage. - **Measures for Enforcement**: PJSC "T Plus" is ordered to pay the specified amount of compensation to LLC Cesla Property Group within 30 days from the date of this decision. Failure to comply will result in additional penalties as prescribed by law. ### Recommendations - **Suggestions for Changing the Behavior of the Losing Party**: PJSC "T Plus" is recommended to improve their operational procedures to prevent damage to surrounding properties and to engage more constructively with property owners in the event of any future incidents. This includes participating in joint inspections and negotiations to resolve disputes amicably. ### Additional Elements - **Annexes**: A list of all documents and evidence considered during the case is attached. - **Instructions for Enforcement**: The court clerk is directed to monitor compliance with this decision and report any non-compliance to the court for further action. """