Lawsuit: Adjourned Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20

[itsBlazeX]

IN THE FEDERAL COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
CIVIL ACTION

Ligthiago (Lovely Law Firm representing)
Plaintiff

V.

FuriousPaladin
Defendant


COMPLAINT
The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:
Ligthiago owned a pet camel named John. Ligthiago had a very strong attachment to John. They took him for walks, played with him, and John was always by Ligthiago’s side. John was Ligthiago’s best friend. But on September 3rd, Ligthiago’s pet camel John was murdered. FuriousPaladin trespassed onto Ligthiago’s property (r078), and killed John. Now Ligthiago’s best friend is gone, and life will never be the same for them without their beloved camel.


I. PARTIES
1. Ligthiago (Plaintiff)
2. FuriousPaladin (Defendant)


II. FACTS
1. Ligthiago owned a pet camel.
2. Ligthiago took their camel on walks, and had a very strong emotional attachment to it (Evidence A).
3. FuriousPaladin trespassed onto Ligthiago’s property.
4. While trespassing, FuriousPaladin murdered Ligthiago’s camel (Evidence B).
5. After the loss of their camel, Ligthiago is now depressed, and life is not enjoyable for them anymore.

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF
1. The Legal Damages Act (Evidence C) states Punitive Damages are awarded “to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future, as a counter claim if a party believes the case to be frivolous and outrageous, or as authorized by law.” FuriousPaladin committed an outrageous act by trespassing onto another person’s property, and proceeding to destroy one of their valuable possessions (Ligthiago’s camel). To prevent FuriousPaladin from committing a similar outrageous act in the future, the Plaintiff will be seeking $15,000 in punitive damages.
2. The Legal Damages Act defines Emotional Damages as “Situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.” Due to FuriousPaladin’s intentional reckless actions, Ligthiago is suffering from depression. Therefore, the Plaintiff is entitled to Emotional Damages.
3. The Legal Damages Act defines The Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont as “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.” Ligthiago does not enjoy DC as much as he did when his camel was still alive. Lightiago took their camel on walks frequently, and can no longer do one of their favorite activities.
4. Right XIV of the Constitution states “Every citizen has the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the principles of fundamental justice.” Ligthiago was deprived of their right to security when FuriousPaladin trespassed onto Ligthiago’s property.


IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF
1. $15,000 in punitive damages, to prevent the Defendant from committing another outrageous act in the future.
2. $15,000 in emotional damages
3. $10,000 for The Loss of Enjoyment of Redmont
4. $10,000 in legal fees

V. EVIDENCE

Evidence A

Evidence B

Evidence C

Act of Congress - Legal Damages Act.

A BILL To Define the different forms of damages. The people of the Commonwealth of Redmont, through their elected Representatives in the Congress and the force of law ordained to that Congress by the people through the constitution, do hereby enact the following provisions into law: 1 - Short...

www.democracycraft.net

By making this submission, I agree I understand the penalties of lying in court and the fact that I am subject to perjury should I knowingly make a false statement in court.


DATED: This 4th day of October 2023

 

[Dartanboy]

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
WRIT OF SUMMONS

The defendant is required to appear before the court in the case of the Ligthiago v. FuriousPaladin. Failure to appear within 48 hours of this summons will result in a default judgment based on the known facts of this case.

I'd also like to remind both parties to be aware of the Court Rules and Procedures, including the option of an in-game trial should both parties request one.​

 

[Dartanboy]

The Defendant has failed to appear.

The Supreme Court has a few questions for the Plaintiff before continuing on to default judgement.

1. In what way was the Defendant's conduct in this case "outrageous?"
2. What steps have you taken to minimize the emotional damage?
3. How have you come to the conclusion that you've suffered $15,000 in emotional damages?
4. Is there any evidence that you enjoyed activities in Redmont that you can no longer enjoy due to the actions of the Defendant?
5. Is there any evidence that the camel was actually yours?

 

[itsBlazeX]

1. The Defendant's conduct is outrageous, because they trespassed onto another player's property, and proceeded to destroy the thing they loved the most.
2. Ligthiago considered adopting a new pet camel to take on walks just like he did with John, but seeing a camel worsened Ligthiago's depression, as it reminded him too much of John.
3. According to the Legal Damages Act, emotional damages shall be awarded in "situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions." As Ligthiago has been emotionally devastated as an effect of the Defendant's outrageous actions, Ligthiago is entitled to $15,000 in emotional damages.
4. Ligthiago took John on walks everytime he was on DemocracyCraft. Ligthiago looked forward to walking John everytime he was online, and enjoyed more than anything else on DemocracyCraft. But when the Defendant brutally murdered Ligthiago's companion, Ligthiago was unable to enjoy this activity, and will never be able to again. As a result, this has also contributed to Ligthiago's depression.
5. It is impossible to show the direct ownership of the camel as they are spawned in using spawn eggs and can't be adopted from the animal shelter. However, as evidenced by the coordinates, the camel was killed inside of Ligthiago's house, and only Ligthiago had access to the inside of his home. For a camel to have been inside of his home, it had to have been Ligthiago's.

 

[Dartanboy]

You have explained what activities, but is there  evidence that Ligthiago actually participated in (and enjoyed) these activities?

 

[itsBlazeX]

Your honor, the Plaintiff requests to testify under oath.

 

[Dartanboy]

Your honor, the Plaintiff requests to testify under oath.

The Plaintiff may provide a statement to the court within 48 hours.

 

[Ligthiago]

Hello Mr judge, im here to talk about John, he was my friend, i everyday took John riding my house and looking to the beatufiull houses of the reveille hills to find the best one for me , i liked so much to ride him and we were real friend , ive choosed a RH house for him to live when i had enough capital, but one day i came on my plot R078 and i didnt found it, i was shocked , ive asked the staff and they told me to contact the DOJ and after more than 1 week they found the log and was written that Furious killed him, i was devasted, i know u can see it as an animal, but for me whas my friend, a friend that can't steal ur things, can't talk bad about you to other people, a friend that will stay on ur side no metter what , and Furious TOLD ME he killed it because WAS jealous... and this is not acceptable to kill a pet of somebody else because you are jealous... i cant no more walk with him and have fun, i love DC, but from when he killed it i enjoyed less the server, ive bought the RH i wanted to have with him, to remember my old friend , he will still live in my memories. i want justice for him and for all the animal murders in the server, because are not only animals, are part of our FAMILY. thanks your honor.

 

[Dartanboy]

Thank you for your timely response. This court will now recess until a Default Judgement is delivered.

 

[Dartanboy]

Verdict

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT
VERDICT
Lightiago v. FuriousPaladin [2023] SCR 20

I. PLAINTIFF'S POSITION
1. Ligthiago owned a pet camel named John.
2. John was Ligthiago’s best friend.
3. FuriousPaladin trespassed onto Ligthiago’s property and killed John
4. Ligthiago is entitled to punitive damages, emotional damages, consequential damages for loss of enjoyment in Redmont, and legal fees.

II. DEFENDANT'S POSITION
1. The Defendant did not appear in court.

III. COURT OPINION
Justice Dartanman delivered the Opinion of the Court.

FuriousPaladin killed Ligthiago’s camel. The question that must be answered is this: “Is the Plaintiff entitled to damages because of this?”

To answer this question, we must look to the Legal Damages Act and the wording within.

The first prayer for relief asks for punitive damages, which the Legal Damages Act allows to be “awarded against a person to punish them for their outrageous conduct and to deter them and others like them from similar conduct in the future.” Thus, for punitive damages to be awarded, it must be shown that the conduct was, in fact, “outrageous.” The court understands that for conduct to be “outrageous” it must be completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community. In this case, we see FuriousPaladin trespass onto someone else’s property and kill their camel. This is, certainly, completely indecent, totally atrocious, and fully intolerable in a civilized community, however the Legal Damages Act also states that the court must “consider the character of the defendant's act, the nature and extent of the harm to the plaintiff that the defendant caused or intended to cause and the wealth of the defendant.” The court notes that although the conduct was outrageous, it was not among the most outrageous of possible acts. Furthermore, as will be explained further in the court opinion, there was not a significant amount of proven harm. Finally, FuriousPaladin has -985 dollars at the time of writing. Due to all of these factors, the court believes a small amount of punitive damages are reasonable.

The second prayer for relief asks for emotional damages, which the Legal Damages Act allows to be awarded for “situations in which a person suffers psychological harm due to an entity's negligent or intentional actions.” Thus, for emotional damages to be awarded, it must be shown that the allegedly damaged party (in this case, the Plaintiff), suffered psychological harm and that this psychological harm was somehow caused by the Defendant. Whilst it has been proven that the Defendant killed the Ligthiago’s camel, there has not been proof of psychological harm, as the testimony of a single, apparently biased party does not meet the standard of proof required for a balance of probabilities.

The third prayer for relief asks for damages due to the Loss of Enjoyment in Redmont, which the Legal Damages Act allows to be awarded for “situations in which an injured party loses their ability to engage in certain activities in the way that the injured party did before the harm.” Thus, for these consequential damages to be awarded, it must be shown that the allegedly damaged party is unable to engage in certain activities in the same way that they previously engaged in such activities, as a result of the harm. Once again, it has been proven that the Defendant killed Ligthiago’s camel, but there has been no proof that the Plaintiff ever engaged in the activities they claimed to in this case, as the testimony of a single, apparently biased party does not meet the standard of proof required for a balance of probabilities.

Overall, the Court recognizes that killing another citizen’s animal is outrageous conduct, in the circumstances of this case. However, there is insufficient evidence to support any amount of emotional damages nor damages due to loss of enjoyment in Redmont, and even if there was, there was not a sufficient argument for the damages being $15,000 and $10,000, respectively.

IV. VERDICT
The Supreme Court hereby rules in favor of the Plaintiff, and grants a modified Prayer for Relief.

The Supreme Court orders the Department of Justice to fine FuriousPaladin $500 in punitive damages and $1,000 in legal fees (a total of $1,500), and unfine Ligthiago the same amount.

The Supreme Court thanks all involved.