Lawsuit: In Session Nimq_ vs Crown, Case 2 (Mag. Ct., 2025)

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S ENTREATIES TO COMPEL
​

The court has reviewed the Plaintiff's Entreaties to Compel (#11, #12 and #13) and the Defendant's Submission of Discovery (#14).
The Plaintiff asked the court to compel the Defendant to produce three different pieces of information in three separate Entreaties. The Defendant did not oppose these requests for discovery and produced the information requested in their Submission of Discovery. As the information requested has already been provided and the Defendant did not oppose the request, there is no need for the court to compel the Defendant to produce the information.

Accordingly, Plaintiff's three Entreaties to Compel are hereby DENIED.

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT'S ENTREATY TO DISMISS
​

The court has reviewed the Defendant's Entreaty to Dismiss (#16) and their request to amend the Entreaty (#18), Plaintiff's Response to the Entreaty to Dismiss (#17), Plaintiff's Entreaty for Clarification (#19) and Plaintiff's Entreaty of Prompting (#20)

The rules of this Court clearly state that any Entreaty to Dismiss should specify the dismissal rule under which it is submitted. The Entreaty made by the Defendant did not specify any dismissal rule.
The situation caused by the recent change to the court rules and procedures, which happened in between the submission of the Entreaty to Dismiss and this ruling on it, is a unique one. This court's rules initially did not include a clear way for the Defendant to reach the result that it appears they intended to reach through their Entreaty to Dismiss. However, the change to this court's rules has specified an Entreaty to do exactly that. This resulted in the Defendant requesting to amend their Entreaty, which them resulted in the Plaintiff's Entreaty for Clarification. The Plaintiff raises valid issues that may arise if the court were to let the Defendant amend their Entreaty to an Entreaty of a different type. The Court does not find it just or in line with the court rules and procedures to allow the Defendant to amend their Entreaty significantly, when the Plaintiff would not be able to alter their response in return. The Court will not accept the amendment to the Entreaty which the Defendant requested and will rule on the Entreaty as it was originally submitted. If the Defendant wishes their Entreaty to be considered as an Entreaty for Removal, the Defendant may resubmit it as such, which would give the Plaintiff the proper ability to respond to the Entreaty as defined in this Court's rules and procedures.
The Plaintiff in their Entreaty for Clarification requested the Court to issue a ruling clarifying whether Entreaties can be amended or not in general. The Court will not grant clarification on this, as it is not within the jurisdiction of this Court to set precedent regarding the general application of the court rules and procedures.
The Plaintiff's Entreaty of Prompting simply requested the Court rule on the pending Entreaty for Clarification, which the court has hereby done.

Accordingly,
Defendant's Entreaty to Dismiss is hereby DENIED;
Plaintiff's Entreaty for Clarification is hereby DENIED;
Plaintiff's Entreaty of Prompting is hereby GRANTED.

 

[Gribble19]

Discovery has ended. The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Opening Statement.

 

[Nim]

ENTREATY OF SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Plaintiff, Nimq_, respectfully moves this Honorable Court for Summary Judgment against the Defendant, the Crown, pursuant to the General Court Rules and Procedures. This motion is based on the grounds that there is no genuine dispute as to any material fact necessary to establish the Defendant's liability for negligence, and the Plaintiff is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

I. STANDARD FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Summary judgment is appropriate when the pleadings, discovery, and admissions on file show that there is "no genuine dispute of material fact" and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.

II. UNDISPUTED MATERIAL FACTS

Based on the Defendant's own Answer to Complaint (filing #6), the following material facts are not in dispute:

1. Plaintiff was traveling along "The Unnamed Big Road" (Answer #6, Point 1).
2. The road contained an unmarked cliff edge, approximately 7 meters high (Answer #6, Points 2 & 3, Plaintiff's Amendment #10).
3. There was a lack of signage or barriers, and the cliff edge was difficult for the Plaintiff to see (Answer #6, Point 3).
4. Plaintiff fell from this cliff edge (Answer #6, Point 4).
5. Plaintiff's fall and subsequent injury were caused by the Defendant's failure to remove or mark this abnormality in the road (Answer #6, Point 4).
6. The Defendant was a part in causing the Plaintiff's injury (Answer #6, Point 7).
7. The Plaintiff sustained injury, specifically the loss of two hearts of health, as a result of the fall (Answer #6, Point 4 & 8).

III. ARGUMENT: LIABILITY IS ESTABLISHED AS A MATTER OF LAW

The undisputed facts establish the necessary elements for the Defendant's negligence:

1. Duty: The Crown, as the governing body responsible for public infrastructure, owes a fundamental duty of care to maintain public roads in a reasonably safe condition for those traveling upon them. This duty exists irrespective of the specific interpretation of §22 of the Constitution. Maintaining a major road with an unmarked 7-meter cliff edge falls below any reasonable standard of care.
2. Breach: The Defendant explicitly admitted the hazardous condition (unmarked cliff), the lack of warnings or barriers, and the difficulty in visibility (Answer #6, Points 2 & 3). This constitutes an undisputed breach of the duty of reasonable care.
3. Causation: The Defendant explicitly admitted that its failure to remove or mark the hazard was the cause of the Plaintiff's fall and resulting injury (Answer #6, Point 4). Causation is therefore undisputed.
4. Damages: The Defendant explicitly admitted the Plaintiff suffered injury (loss of 2 hearts) as a direct result of the fall caused by the Defendant's breach (Answer #6, Points 4 & 8). The *existence* of damages is undisputed.

IV. DEFENDANT'S ARGUMENTS DO NOT CREATE A GENUINE DISPUTE OF MATERIAL FACT PRECLUDING SUMMARY JUDGMENT ON LIABILITY

The Defendant raises two primary defenses in its Answer (#6), neither of which creates a genuine dispute of *material fact* sufficient to deny summary judgment on the issue of liability:

1. Constitutional Interpretation (§22 and Citizenship): The Defendant argues §22 protections do not apply or only apply to citizens, and claims Plaintiff is not a citizen.
* This is fundamentally a question of *law* for the Court to decide, not a dispute of *fact* requiring trial. The Magistrate can interpret §22 based on the undisputed circumstances.
* Furthermore, the Defendant's argument regarding citizenship leads to an untenable position. As established in Plaintiff's Response (#3) and unrebutted by Defendant, citizenship/residency plots have not been formalized or made available. If Plaintiff is not a citizen entitled to basic safety protections on public land due to this administrative delay, then *no one* currently residing in the Kingdom is, potentially including the Defendant's own representatives. To argue that the Crown owes no basic duty of care regarding dangerous hazards on public roads to *any* inhabitant until formal citizenship is granted is contrary to fundamental principles of governance and safety. The Crown has also failed to provide *any* evidence supporting its assertion that Plaintiff lacks the requisite status for protection.
* Even setting aside §22, the fundamental common law or general legal duty of a governing body to maintain public ways safely remains, and the breach thereof is undisputed.

2. Severity and Valuation of Damages: The Defendant disputes the *severity* of the injury ("minor inconvenience") and the *monetary value* of the damages (£0.40-£1.00 vs. £1,100), including denying compensation for mental distress and the appropriateness of punitive damages (Answer #6, Points 4, 8, 9).
* While the *amount* of damages is disputed, this does not negate the undisputed facts establishing the Defendant's *liability* for causing *some* damages through negligence.
* Summary judgment is appropriate on the issue of liability, even if the precise calculation of damages requires further argument or determination by the Court. The Defendant's admission of causing 2 hearts of damage provides an undisputed baseline of injury.

V. CONCLUSION

The material facts establishing the Defendant's duty, breach, causation, and the existence of damages are undisputed based on the Defendant's own admissions. The Defendant's arguments regarding constitutional interpretation and the precise value of damages are either matters of law for the Court or do not preclude a finding of liability. There is no genuine dispute of material fact remaining regarding the Defendant's negligence.

VI. PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff Nimq_ respectfully requests that this Court:

1. Grant this Entreaty of Summary Judgment in favor of the Plaintiff.
2. Enter a judgment finding the Defendant, the Crown, liable for negligence.
3. Award the Plaintiff damages as sought in the Amended Complaint (filing #10) in the amount of £1,100 (representing £100 compensatory and £1,000 punitive damages), or alternatively, enter judgment on liability and schedule further proceedings solely for the determination of damages if the Court deems necessary.
4. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and equitable.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
April 25, 2025

 

[Greenish9]

ENTREATY TO POSTPONE
In the Magistrate's Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria

The Defendant supplicates the Court to grant the Defendant an additional forty-eight hours to respond to the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgement. This is because the Defendant is currently busy with his IRL studies and will not be able to complete a response to the Entreaty without compromising his academic success.
4/25/25​

 

[Gribble19]

The Court hereby extends the formal expiration date for Defendant to respond to Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgement (#24) by 12 hours from the original deadline. This ensures that the Plaintiff has the proper 24 hours to respond to Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone, while also ensuring that the deadline, which Defendant has requested to be postponed, has not passed by the time the Court may rule on the Entreaty to Postpone.

 

[Nim]

PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANT'S ENTREATY TO POSTPONE

Plaintiff, Nimq_, hereby responds to the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (filing #25) regarding the deadline for responding to the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment (filing #24).

1. The Plaintiff acknowledges receipt of the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (filing #25), requesting an additional 48 hours to respond to the pending Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) due to the Defendant's Counsel's real-life academic commitments.
2. The Plaintiff also acknowledges the Court's interim Order (filing #26) extending the response deadline by 12 hours to allow for this response.
3. The Plaintiff understands the pressures of real-life obligations and therefore does not object to the Defendant's request for a 48-hour postponement of the deadline to respond to the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24). Plaintiff consents to the Court granting this extension.
4. However, Plaintiff notes that this postponement will necessarily delay the resolution of the pending Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) and potentially subsequent stages of this case.
5. Should the Court deny or partially deny the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24), thereby requiring the Plaintiff to proceed with submitting an Opening Statement as per the Court's Order (filing #23), Plaintiff respectfully requests that a new deadline be set for the Opening Statement. Specifically, Plaintiff requests 24 hours, commencing from the time the Court issues its ruling on the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24), to submit the Opening Statement. This ensures the Plaintiff has a defined period to prepare the statement after the outcome of the Summary Judgment motion is known, accounting for the delay introduced by the Defendant's requested postponement.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court:

1. Grant the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (filing #25), extending the deadline for the Defendant's response to the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) by 48 hours from the originally scheduled deadline.
2. Order that, should the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24) be denied or partially denied, necessitating the submission of an Opening Statement, the Plaintiff shall have 24 hours, starting from the time the Court issues its ruling on the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24), to submit said Opening Statement.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
April 26, 2025

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF CONTINUANCE
​

The court has reviewed the Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone (#25). The Court has not considered the Plaintiff's Response to the Entreaty, as it was not submitted within 24 hours from the submission of the Entreaty.

The Court postpones proceedings for 48 hours, or until the Defendant submits their response to the Entreaty of Summary Judgment in case this happens before the end of the 48 hours. Defendant's deadline to respond to the Entreaty of Summary Judgment is hereby set 48 hours from now. The Court would once again like to remind all parties to please make use of the entreaties that are defined in this court's rules and procedures if one exists that exactly fits their request, such as an Entreaty of Continuance would have in this situation.

Accordingly, Defendant's Entreaty to Postpone is hereby GRANTED.

 

[Greenish9]

RESPONSE TO ENTREATY OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
In the Magistrate's Court of the Kingdom of Alexandria


- The Defendant does not contest the facts of what occurred to the Plaintiff in relation to his fall and the ensuing injury, nor the causes for the fall and ensuing injury.
- The Defendant does contest the Plaintiff's statement that "liability is established as a matter of law." The Plaintiff is incorrect when he claims that the Defendant "...owes a fundamental duty of care to maintain public roads in a reasonably safe condition." This is because no law or statue establishes this duty and no claim of this being a "reasonable standard of care" possibly establishes this as a material fact.
- The Defendant agrees that there is no dispute of material fact about the status of what occurred to the Plaintiff in relation to his fall and the ensuing injury and its causes, however disagrees with the Plaintiff's statement that "[t]he Magistrate can interpret §22 [of the Constitution] based on the undisputed circumstances." As established in the General Court Rules and Procedures, only the Chancery can decide upon Constitutional matters.
- The Defendant denies that the alleged "fundamental principles of governance and safety" would be breached by a lack of citizenship law. A failure of the Legislature to establish certain law is not something that the Court action up on, regardless of its opinion on said law. The Court only interpret the law, not create it. The Court can use this power to decide that a certain law violates the Constitution, among other things, but it cannot itself violate the Constitutionally established status of the Parliament as the sole progenitor of law. Therefore, the Court cannot compel the Parliament to pass any law; which includes enacting upon it punitive measure for the lack of said law because that is inherently a compelling of the Parliament to enact said law.
- The Defendant denies that it needs to provide "evidence supporting its assertion that Plaintiff lacks the requisite status for protection" because, at the time of the filing of the complaint, there was no definition for what falls under citizenship. The Defendant finds it unreasonable to ask it to provide evidence of something that did not exist.
- The Defendant denies the existence of a "fundamental common law or general legal duty of a governing body to maintain public ways safely remains..." as this cannot be derived from any pre-existing law or judicial precedent and therefore does not provably or reasonably exist.
4/27/25​

 

[Nim]

ENTREATY OF PROMPTING

Plaintiff, Nimq_, hereby submits this Entreaty of Prompting to respectfully request that the Court issue a ruling on the Plaintiff's "Entreaty of Summary Judgement" (filed April 25, 2025).

ARGUMENT

1. PENDING RULING: The Plaintiff's "Entreaty of Summary Judgement" has been pending before the Court since April 25, 2025.

2. DELAY IN DECISION: The Court has not yet issued a ruling on the request for summary judgement, and it has been 5 days.

3. MATERIAL IMPACT: It will move on the case. Especially considering the timeline on Opening Statements.

RELIEF REQUESTED

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court promptly issue a ruling on the Plaintiff's "Entreaty of Summary Judgement" so that this matter can proceed in a timely and orderly fashion.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
April 30, 2025

 

[Nim]

SECOND ENTREATY OF PROMPTING

Plaintiff, Nimq_, hereby submits this Second Entreaty of Prompting to respectfully request that the Honorable Magistrate issue a ruling on the Plaintiff's pending "Entreaty of Summary Judgment" (filed April 25, 2025, filing #24).

ARGUMENT

1. PENDING MOTION: The Plaintiff's "Entreaty of Summary Judgment" (#24) was filed on April 25, 2025.
2. RESPONSE FILED: The Defendant filed their "Response to Entreaty of Summary Judgement" (#29) on April 27, 2025, following a granted continuance.
3. MOTION READY FOR RULING: The motion has been fully briefed and awaiting a ruling from the Court since April 27, 2025, a period of eight (8) days as of the filing of this Second Entreaty.
4. PREVIOUS PROMPT: Plaintiff previously filed an "Entreaty of Prompting" (#30) regarding this same motion on April 30, 2025, five (5) days ago. Despite this, no ruling has been issued.
5. VIOLATION OF GUIDING PRINCIPLES: This extended delay in ruling on a potentially case-dispositive motion contravenes the Judiciary's Guiding Principles, specifically:
   
   • Principle (iv): "To complete such a fair trial in speed and timely care as reasonable." An eight-day delay on a fully briefed motion, following a prior prompt, raises concerns regarding timeliness.
   • Principle (i): The delay hinders "the delivery of justice through a fair trial" by stalling the proceedings indefinitely.
   • Principle (v): The lack of a ruling obstructs efforts "to ease the process of achieving justice in the court of law."
6. NEED FOR RESOLUTION: A ruling on the Entreaty of Summary Judgment is necessary for the parties to understand how the case will proceed, whether liability is established, or if Opening Statements are required as per the Court's previous order (#23). The current standstill prevents any progress in this matter.

RELIEF REQUESTED

For the foregoing reasons, the Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court promptly issue a ruling on the Plaintiff's "Entreaty of Summary Judgment" (filing #24) so that this matter can proceed in a timely and orderly fashion, consistent with the Court's Guiding Principles.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_
May 5, 2025

 

[Gribble19]

IN THE MAGISTRATES COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF ALEXANDRIA
WRIT OF SUMMARY JUDGEMENT
​

The Court has reviewed the Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#24), Entreaties of Prompting (#30, #31) and the Defendant's response to the Entreaty of Summary Judgment (#29).
The Plaintiff moves for Summary Judgement on the matter of liability and claims that there is no genuine dispute of material fact regarding this matter. Looking at the Defendant's response to the Entreaty it indeed becomes clear that there are no genuine disputes of material fact regarding the question of liability. The Defendant states that “The Defendant agrees that there is no dispute of material fact about the status of what occurred to the Plaintiff in relation to his fall and the ensuing injury and its causes.” In the same response, the Defendant does bring up other disputes they have with statements that the Plaintiff has made. These disputes, however, are all disputes of law. They relate to the interpretation of laws or the interpretation of the lack thereof. Although these are genuine disputes, and although these legal questions are material and relevant to the decisions that are to be made by the Court, they are not disputes of fact but rather disputes of law.

Accordingly,
Plaintiff's Entreaties of Prompting are hereby both GRANTED;
Plaintiff's Entreaty of Summary Judgment is hereby GRANTED.

The court will hereby issue a ruling on the matter of the Defendant’s liability for negligence in this case.

RULING ON THE MATTER OF LIABILITY​

In order for negligence to be proven, it is commonly considered that there are 4 or 5 necessary elements that must be satisfied:
1. Duty
2. Breach of Duty
3. Causation (which may be split into both proximate cause and cause-in-fact)
4. Damages

Duty
The major dispute of law in this case concerns whether or not the Crown had a duty to maintain public roads and areas in a safe condition for use by citizens.
The Plaintiff’s position regarding this is that the Crown, through the Ministry of Development, had this duty. The Plaintiff claims that this duty arises from law, namely from §22 of the Constitution, which guarantees the right to life, liberty, and security of the person in clause 11. The Defendant disagrees and states that this clause does not give rise to this specific duty, as they consider a loss of two hearts not to be an infringement on life or liberty. They further state that “The Defendant fully contests the notion of simply any minor injury sustained by someone to be a violation of this clause.” The Court agrees with the Defendant in this regard. Clause 11 of §22 of the Constitution states that the Government is responsible for guaranteeing “the right to life, liberty, and security of the person and the right not to be deprived thereof”. This, in the opinion of the Court, does not imply that the government has a duty to ensure that there is no situation anywhere at all that has potentially unsafe conditions for citizens. The Court does not find that a duty for the crown to maintain roads and areas in a safe condition for use by citizens arises from law in the manner proposed by the Plaintiff.
The Court, however, still finds a duty exists. The road in question is a public road. The Crown owns this road and the road is publicly accessible and intended for use by the larger public. From this relationship inherently arises a duty. People using something publicly accessible, available and intended for public use, may reasonably assume that using the particular thing, as long as such is used reasonably and in the intended manner, would not result in dangerous situations, physical or psychological harm. The owner of such a thing, then therefore has the duty to ensure that those using it in a reasonably and intended manner do not get put in dangerous situations that are likely to lead to physical or psychological harm. The Court thus finds that the Defendant in this case had a duty to ensure that those using the public road in a reasonable and intended manner would not be put in situations that are dangerous or likely to lead to physical or psychological harm.

Breach of Duty
Both parties agree that there was a 7-block cliff in the road that was not clearly visible and with no signage or barriers. The court finds that a reasonable person using a public road would not expect a 7-block cliff to exist without any signage or barriers notifying them of such. It would be clear to a reasonable person that a 7-block cliff could cause potentially dangerous situations and that this is not the expected state of a public road.
Considering that the cliff was not clearly visible and that there was no signage and no barriers informing the users of the cliff, the Court finds that it is more likely than not that someone using the public road in a reasonable and intended manner could get put in an unreasonably dangerous situation that could cause physical or psychological harm. By allowing the 7-block cliff to exist without any sort of attempt to inform users of the public road that such is the case, the Crown has therefore broken the duty previously established.

Causation
Both parties agree that the Plaintiff has fallen from the cliff. The Plaintiff claims that their fall and the subsequent injury were caused by the Defendant not removing or marking the abnormality in the road. The Defendant does not contest this, and causation is thus apparent.

Damages
Both parties agree that damage has been caused by Plaintiff’s fall from the cliff. The Defendant argues that the injuries are less severe than what the Plaintiff has claimed, but both parties are in agreement that injuries of some sort have been caused to the Plaintiff by their fall from the cliff. This fulfills the fourth element.

​

All elements that are commonly considered to be necessary in order for negligence to be proven are satisfied in this case. The Court rules in favor of the Plaintiff on this matter and finds the Defendant liable for the damages caused to the Plaintiff due to Defendant's negligence. As there are genuine disputes of material fact relating to the significance of these damages, proceedings will continue for the purpose of determining the specific damages that the Defendant owes to the Plaintiff.

 

[Gribble19]

Due to the delays caused by the Entreaties, the new deadline for Plaintiff's Opening Statement is hereby set for 48 hours from now. This deadline will stand regardless of any filings by either party unless specifically changed by the Court.

 

[Nim]

PLAINTIFF'S OPENING STATEMENT ON DAMAGES

May it please the Court.

Your Honor, we stand before you today not to debate whether the Crown was negligent – this Court has already issued a clear and definitive ruling on that matter. In its Writ of Summary Judgment, this Court found that the Crown breached its duty of care to the Plaintiff, Nimq_, and that this breach directly caused the Plaintiff’s injuries. The Crown’s liability for negligence is established.

Our purpose now, Your Honor, is to address the just and proper compensation for the harm inflicted, and to consider the measures necessary to deter such negligence in the future. The Plaintiff seeks a total of £1,100: £100 in compensatory damages and £1,000 in punitive damages.

I. Compensatory Damages: Making the Plaintiff Whole (£100)

The Crown has admitted key facts: the Plaintiff fell from an unmarked, 7-meter cliff on a public road due to the Crown's failure to maintain or warn of this hazard. The Plaintiff suffered a loss of two hearts of health as a direct result.

The Defendant has attempted to trivialize this injury, valuing it at the mere cost of a few food items – between £0.40 and £1.00. Your Honor, this perspective fundamentally misunderstands the nature of the harm. Compensatory damages are not merely about the cost of digital food. They are about compensating for the actual injury sustained, the shock and fright of an unexpected fall from a significant height, the loss of security while traversing public land, and the time and resources spent in recovery, however brief.

The fall itself, from a 7-meter precipice, would cause any reasonable person significant alarm and distress. The loss of health, even if recoverable, represents a period of vulnerability and a direct physical impact. The requested £100 is a modest sum to acknowledge the physical injury, the inherent mental distress and fear associated with such an incident, and the breach of the Plaintiff's right to expect reasonably safe passage on Crown infrastructure. It is not an exorbitant claim, but a fair reflection of the totality of the direct harm experienced.

II. Punitive Damages: Deterrence and Accountability (£1,000)

Beyond compensating the Plaintiff, this case calls for punitive damages. Punitive damages serve a distinct and vital purpose: to punish the Defendant for its egregious conduct and to deter the Crown, and others, from similar acts of negligence in the future.

The Crown's negligence here was not a minor oversight. It was a failure to address a significant, obvious, and dangerous hazard – an unmarked 7-meter cliff – on a "Big Road" intended for public use. The Crown’s own discovery submissions revealed an alarming lack of awareness or concern for this hazard prior to this lawsuit. They admitted to having no maintenance records and no internal communications about this cliff. This demonstrates a systemic failure in upholding public safety.

The very newness of this Kingdom, which the Defendant has alluded to, makes the imposition of punitive damages even more critical. It sets a precedent. It sends a clear message from this Court that the safety of inhabitants is paramount and that a lack of established bureaucracy or the excuse of a "new server" does not absolve the Crown of its fundamental responsibilities.

A sum of £1,000 is significant enough to capture the Crown’s attention, to underscore the gravity of its negligence, and to incentivize the implementation of proper inspection, maintenance, and warning systems for all public infrastructure. It is an investment in the future safety of all who reside in and travel through Alexandria. It will ensure that the Crown takes its duty of care seriously, preventing future injuries and reinforcing the principle that public ways must be maintained in a reasonably safe condition.

Conclusion

Your Honor, the facts establishing the Crown’s negligence are no longer in dispute. The harm to the Plaintiff is clear. We will demonstrate through the evidence and arguments presented that the requested £100 in compensatory damages is a fair and reasonable valuation of the Plaintiff’s losses, and that the £1,000 in punitive damages is both warranted by the Crown’s conduct and necessary for the future safety and well-being of this Kingdom’s inhabitants.

We respectfully ask this Court to award the Plaintiff the full £1,100 in damages.

Thank you.

 

[Gribble19]

The Defendant has 72 hours to submit their opening statement.

 

[Greenish9]

DEFENDANTS OPENING STATEMENT ON DAMAGES

May it please the Court,

Your Honor, the Plaintiff seeks to paint this as an outrageous damage incurred upon them. This is simply not true. While we accept the Court’s ruling that the Crown be held responsible, the amount that the Plaintiff requests is not proportionate to the damage that was incurred upon them. The Defendant believes that only restorative damages are necessary in this case because both punitive and preventative damages would be less effective in the administration of justice than compelling the Defendant to open a ticket with staff to fix the issue.

RESTORATIVE DAMAGES - £5

As established by the Chancery, the purpose of restorative damages is to restore what the Plaintiff lost. The Plaintiff fell 7 blocks and took two hearts of damage. £5 is a sufficient amount to compensate the Plaintiff for the damage he took, in lieu of how cheap food is at the moment. £100 is simply not appropriate to the current value of the pound. Furthermore, the fall might have caused the Plaintiff a light fright, but there is no way it could have scared him enough to require this much compensation, nor is there anyway that paying him would restore any of the hypothetical emotional damage he incurred.

REBUTTAL TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES

Punitive damages will simply do nothing. The Plaintiff’s injury is a mistake that staff made when building the city and that no one had noticed yet at the time of the Plaintiff’s fall. There is no need to deter the Defendant or capture its attention. The Plaintiff fell and filed this suit the very day the server opened. This accomplishes nothing, as the Crown does not plan on making any more Minecraft server. All that’s necessary is that the Court compel the Crown to open a ticket with staff to fix the issue and move the road down.

CONCLUSION

The Defendant supplicates the Court to be wise in their ruling and to not set a standard of unnecessary and exorbitant payments.

 

[Gribble19]

The Plaintiff has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.

 

[Nim]

PLAINTIFF'S CLOSING STATEMENT ON DAMAGES

May it please the Court.

Your Honor, I wish to briefly apologize for any delays, as my real-life academic exams have demanded significant time.

Your Honor, we have reached the final stage of this case, a stage focused solely on determining the appropriate damages for the harm caused by the Crown's established negligence. This Court has already wisely and definitively ruled in its Writ of Summary Judgment (#32) that the Crown breached its duty of care, and that this breach directly caused injury to the Plaintiff, Nimq_. Liability is not in question.

Our purpose now is to affirm why the Plaintiff's request for £100 in compensatory damages and £1,000 in punitive damages is just, reasonable, and necessary.

I. Compensatory Damages: Recognizing the Full Scope of Harm (£100)

The Defendant, in its Opening Statement on Damages (#36), attempts to minimize the Plaintiff’s injury to the mere cost of in-game food, suggesting a paltry sum of £5. Your Honor, this profoundly mischaracterizes and devalues the actual harm suffered.

Compensatory damages are intended to make the Plaintiff whole. While the two hearts of health lost can be restored with food, the experience of that loss, and the circumstances surrounding it, cannot be so easily dismissed. The undisputed facts are that the Plaintiff plummeted from an unmarked, unexpected 7-meter cliff on a public thoroughfare.

• This was not a minor trip; it was a significant fall.
• Such an event inherently involves shock, fright, and a momentary loss of security and control – elements of harm that go beyond the simple replacement cost of health points.
• The Defendant's argument that "there is no way it could have scared him enough to require this much compensation, nor is there anyway that paying him would restore any of the hypothetical emotional damage" is dismissive. While perfect restoration of emotional state is impossible, monetary compensation is the recognized legal remedy for acknowledging such non-pecuniary harms like fear and distress resulting directly from a physical injury caused by negligence.

The £100 requested is a modest and fair sum. It accounts not just for the physical injury but also for the inherent alarm, distress, and the violation of the Plaintiff's reasonable expectation of safety on Crown-maintained infrastructure. It reflects the totality of the negative experience directly caused by the Defendant's negligence.

II. Punitive Damages: Ensuring Accountability and Future Safety (£1,000)

The Defendant argues that punitive damages "will simply do nothing" and are unnecessary because the hazard was a "mistake that staff made" and the "Crown does not plan on making any more Minecraft server" (#36). These arguments fundamentally misunderstand the purpose of punitive damages and the Crown's ongoing responsibilities.

1. Deterrence is Essential: Punitive damages are not solely about punishing past conduct; they are crucially about deterring future negligence.
   
   • The argument that this was a "staff mistake" does not absolve the Crown; it highlights a systemic failure in oversight, maintenance, or communication for which the Crown is ultimately responsible. The Crown, as the governing body, has a duty to ensure its "staff" or agents act with due care.
   • The assertion that the "Crown does not plan on making any more Minecraft server" is irrelevant. The Crown is the governing entity of this Kingdom of Alexandria. It continues to exist and operate infrastructure within this realm. Punitive damages serve to deter this Crown from similar negligence in its ongoing management of public ways and infrastructure within this Kingdom.
   • The fact that the Plaintiff "filed this suit the very day the server opened" underscores the importance of setting a standard for safety from the outset. Allowing such negligence to pass without significant consequence would set a dangerous precedent.
2. Compelling a Fix is Insufficient: The Defendant suggests that "compelling the Defendant to open a ticket with staff to fix the issue" is an adequate remedy. While fixing the hazard is imperative to prevent future incidents – and indeed should have been done proactively – it does not address the negligence that already occurred, nor does it compensate the Plaintiff for their injury, nor does it sufficiently deter the Crown from future systemic lapses. Rectification of a hazard after an injury is a corrective measure, not a substitute for damages arising from the initial negligence.
3. Significance of the Award: A £1,000 punitive damage award is not "exorbitant" (#36). It is a sum significant enough to:
   
   • Impress upon the Crown the seriousness with which this Court views breaches of public safety.
   • Incentivize the Crown to implement proactive inspection, maintenance, and warning systems for all public infrastructure, rather than reacting only after harm occurs.
   • Reinforce the principle, especially vital in a new Kingdom, that the governing body has a profound responsibility for the safety of its inhabitants.

Conclusion

Your Honor, the Crown was negligent. The Plaintiff was injured as a direct result. The compensatory damages of £100 sought are a reasonable reflection of the harm experienced. The punitive damages of £1,000 are necessary to hold the Crown accountable for its serious lapse in duty and to deter such negligence in the future, thereby protecting all who traverse the lands of Alexandria.

To suggest that merely fixing the hazard now, after the fact, and offering a token sum for in-game food is sufficient, is to ignore the gravity of the negligence and the importance of establishing robust standards of care and accountability.

We respectfully urge this Court to award the Plaintiff the full £1,100 in damages, thereby delivering justice for the Plaintiff and upholding the principles of safety and responsibility within this Kingdom.

Thank you.

Respectfully submitted,

Nimq_

 

[Gribble19]

The Defendant has 72 hours to submit their Closing Statement.

 

[Gribble19]

As the deadline for the Defendant's Closing Statement has long passed and the Defendant has not yet submitted their statement, the Crown is charged with Contempt and is fined £100. They shall be charged again and fined a further £100 for every hour after this that they are late in the submission of their Closing Statement.