Dominax273 v tajworks 2025 BCRCiv 1
Dominax273 v tajworks [2025] BCRCiv 1
| Date of judgment | 11th October 2025 |
| Judge | Thyme |
| Grounds |
|
| Verdict |
|
| Result | The defendant must pay the plaintiff 400 tau. |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
SUMMARY JUDGMENT by Judge Thyme
[1] The plaintiff is suing the defendant for two (2) counts of negligence and one (1) count of assault, torts found within the Camel Civil Code, alleging that the defendant owes the plaintiff compensation for harm suffered from the defendant's actions.
[2] The defendant has refused to participate in this trial, leading to this summary judgement based on the filings of the plaintiff. This judgement may be appealed to the High Court of the Bicamel Republic of SimDemocracy.
First Count of Negligence
[3] For the first count of negligence, the plaintiff argues that the defendant breached his reasonably expected duty of needing a legally viable reason, and evidence to match, in order to delete another Camel's message.
[4] The Court disagrees with the above assertion, citing the evidence supplied by the plaintiff which shows that the defendant, using permissions granted to him from his position as the Great Camel Attorney, deleting a message from the plaintiff. What the evidence does not show, however, is the contents of the deleted message and whether or not the defendant supplied enough information to justify deleting it.
[5] Despite the defendant's refusal to participate in these legal proceedings, he has made it very clear time and time again that the deleted message contained personally identifiable information (PII) about the defendant. If this were true, he would have had the right to delete the message as it would have been a gross violation of the Discord Terms of Service and he would not be expected to share the exact contents of the deleted message as it would further expose his PII. The plaintiff was not able to prove otherwise, so therefore the defendant is not held liable for this count of negligence.
Second Count of Negligence
[6] For the second count of negligence, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant breached his duty to, "not be rude to others or things [sic] things to them which could cause emotional harm, and additionally is reasonably expected to tell [sic] a minor to commit sexual acts (even in a joking minor)." The plaintiff alleges this duty was breached when the defendant sent a message to the plaintiff stating, "suck my dick, wait 10m then do it again".
[11] The Court disagrees with the plaintiff. It is not reasonably expected that a Camel of the Bicamel Republic of SimDemocracy refrain from being rude, as being rude remains a clear and traditional form of communication between Camels. It is, however, reasonably expected that individuals refrain from intentionally causing deep emotional harm. It is also reasonably expected that individuals refrain from telling a minor to commit sexual acts.
[12] However, these expectations are not found to be duties as prescribed by the law. A duty is defined by Cornell Law as, "an obligation to act based on law, custom, ethics, or personal commitment." While it may certainly be an ethical duty of someone to not cause emotional harm with their words, that is not a legal duty and this Court refuses to entertain otherwise. A reasonable expectation is not the same thing as a legal duty. Therefore, the defendant is not held liable for the second count of negligence.
One Count of Assault
[13] For the one count of assault, the plaintiff alleges that the defendant committed assault when he posted two photos of the plaintiff's face, taken from screenshots of a Voice Call on Discord.
[14] The Court agrees with the assertion entered by the plaintiff, noting that posting anyone's face is a severe violation of their privacy. People are entitled to share, or withhold sharing, their face with anyone they want at their own discretion. By taking this choice away from the plaintiff, the defendant is held liable for assault.