Lawsuit: Dismissed Vexatis v. SGE24 [2021] DCR 1

[bren]

IN THE COURT OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF REDMONT


CIVIL ACTION








VEXATIS (Represented by R. B. Crunch)


Plaintiff





v.





DOCTOR SGE24


Defendant





COMPLAINT


The Plaintiff complains against the Defendant as follows:





Your Honour,





The defendant violated his duty to Hamilton City when he denied my client medical service in a moment of dire need and instead willed my client dead.





Had it not been for the heroic and quick action of the Medical Specialist BLARIEN, my client, and potentially others, could have died from the infectious whooping cough.








I. PARTIES

1. VEXATIS
2. DOCTOR SGE24

II. FACTS

1. The Defendant neglected to provide the Plaintiff with life saving medical service.
2. The Defendant willed the Plaintiff dead in chat, disregarding his professional obligations.
3. The Plaintiff was infected with whooping cough and needed immediate medical attention to prevent further spread and/or death.
4. The Plaintiff was present at the hospital, willing and able to pay, and otherwise qualified to receive medical help from a willing doctor.
5. As explicitly stated in the Doctor Job Guide: “A doctor must always prioritize treating a patient over personal needs.”

III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

1. The Defendant failed to complete his duties to care for the health of the Plaintiff and the well being of the general public in regards to the contagious disease whooping cough.
2. The Plaintiff has suffered beyond what is reasonable due to the Defendant’s neglect.
3. In relief of the avoidable efforts caused by this court case, we seek additional monetary relief of $100

IV. PRAYER FOR RELIEF


The Plaintiff seeks the following from the Defendant:

1. The Defendant shall pay $300 in damages for the emotional, physical, and lasting trauma caused to the Plaintiff by the Defendant’s neglectful behaviour.
2. The Defendant shall pay an additional $100 in relief for the efforts of this court case.

V. EVIDENCE & WITNESSES


“Evidence #1” The chat logs showing the Plaintiff requested help from a doctor while waiting at the hospital and was told simply “die” by the Defendant


“Evidence #2” The DemocracyCraft Doctor Job Guide description of duties.


“Evidence #3” Chat logs with Blarien confirming that they had administered treatment for an infectious disease to the Plaintiff


"Evidence #4" Confirmation of my representation of the Plaintiff





DATED: This 28th day of January, 2021

 

[Matt]

Verdict

This case has been dismissed on the basis that where a lawsuit is based on the actions of a Government employee, the lawsuit should be directed to their respective department (in this case, the Department of Health).

If you are to resubmit this claim, I would say more substantive evidence of a loss suffered by the plaintiff must be shown.