Ppatpat v Birdish 2025 Civ 38
Ppatpat v Birdish152 [2025] Civ 38
| Date of judgment | 5th January 2026 |
| Judge | Judge Hmquestionable |
| Torts |
|
| Verdict | Liable |
| Awards | 12,000 t |
| Applicable persuasive precedent |
|
JUDGMENT by Judge Hmquestionable
(Other half of Ppatpat v SD [2025] Civ 38)
Introduction
[1] This case arises from the handling of the 156th Presidential Election by the then-election commissioner Birdish152. The Plaintiff, Ppatpat, ran in that election. Due to the illegal rigging of the election by the Defendant, the Plaintiff lost the election.
[2] The Plaintiff has now brought a lawsuit alleging Breach of Civil Rights. The Defense did not introduce any objection to a motion for summary judgment, and I found that all requirements for summary judgment had been met. I hence found summarily for the plaintiff. The case therefore immediately proceeds to the determination of damages.
Submissions on Damages
[3] The Plaintiff recommends a 10,000 tau initial sum, which is the statutory maximum under the Civil Code Compensation Guidelines Act (the “Guidelines”), citing the planning and premeditation involved. They then elevate this sum to 18,000 tau, by citing the 4 listed factors for additional damages under the guidelines, namely:
- (a) loss of desire to participate in SimDemocracy, namely due to the unfair election;
- (b) emotional distress, due to the “stressful and demoralizing” litigation process (this trial)
- (c) loss of reputation, from being branded the loser of the election; and,
- (d) loss of economic or social opportunity, due to the deprivation of the mandate for the defendant which was lost.
They request 2000t for each additional factor.
[4] The Defense submits that I should not find the Defendant liable for 30,000 tau, as it is about 2 and a half years’ salary for the President, one of the highest paid positions in SimDemocracy (the President is paid 250 tau). This seems to be a misreading of the Plaintiff’s claim, as the Plaintiff is only claiming 18,000 tau. I will hence disregard that submission.
[5] The Defense next submits that 2000 tau is “2x too much” for any loss of opportunity (under (a) of the additional damages Guidelines). No reasoning is provided for this submission.
[6] The Defense then submits that nothing suggests that the plaintiff suffered a loss in reputation, as many candidates lose elections, and the fact that the election was corrupted would eliminate any reputational loss from the election.
[7] The Defense further submits that the point of emotional distress is caused by the plaintiff themselves, as they decided to bring the case to court.
[8] Finally, the Defense submits that no loss of desire to participate has been shown, as the plaintiff is still active in the court system.
Compensatory Damages
[9] Under Article 1 of the Guidelines, the maximum compensatory damages, absent certain special factors (which are absent in this case), is 10,000t. The minimum is 0t.
[10] To determine the most appropriate amount of damages, I will devise a scale on which tortious actions under Breach of Civil Rights can fall under.
[11] At the lower end of the scale are cases where the defendant does not intend to cause the breach in rights (hence doing so with recklessness). The middle of the scale would be cases where the statutory or common law rights of the plaintiff are violated with intent, and the high end would contain cases in which the constitutional rights of the plaintiff are violated. The degree of the breach must also be considered.
| ——————————————————————————————————————→ | ||
|---|---|---|
| Breach of rights without intent | Breach of statutory rights with intent | Breach of constitutional rights with intent |
| Low degree | Medium degree | High degree |
Diagram 1: Framework for Breach of Civil Rights suits
[12] This case falls under the high end of the scale. Constitutional rights are the most protected rights of all, and draw above statute law and the Constitution. Therefore, wilful violations of these rights receive the highest compensation.
[13] This case is what I would classify as a high degree case. The election process is one of the most integral to our state, which is the state of SimDemocracy. Changing election results for one’s own purposes greatly violates the rights of the citizens of our state, and in particular, the Plaintiff, who was the rightful winner of the election. Hence, I find that the maximum compensation of 10,000t is justified in this case.
Additional Damages
[14] I shall firstly note that I do not accept the submissions on emotional distress by the plaintiff. This trial and other litigation is caused by the plaintiff filing suit. The plaintiff has also not shown any evidence of their emotional distress.
[15] I also do not accept the claim of loss of desire to participate, owing to the same lack of evidence.
[16] In relation to loss of reputation, I note that this election (under the falsified results) came down to a single vote. I find it unlikely that the Plaintiff would be lowered in relation to the reputational standards of a reasonable person for losing an election by a single vote.
[17] As to loss of social opportunity, the loss of the ability to be a President, who is the leader of the executive branch, and the loss of the ability to implement policies and reforms as President is of such a high caliber that no amount of money will be able to compensate for its loss. The Defense’s unreasoned submission that the amount of 2000t is “at least 2x too much for any loss of opportunity” is not convincing to me. I hence award the statutory maximum under the Guidelines of 2000t for loss of social opportunity.
Conclusion
[18] This court cannot, through this case, return the Plaintiff to their rightful position as President. Such a loss owing to fraud is simply not reparable. However, the Court is hopeful that the damages awarded to the plaintiff will be able to sufficiently compensate for that loss.
[19] In conclusion, I award the Plaintiff 12,000t for Breach of Civil Rights by the Defendant, Birdish152. This amount is to be paid within 48 hours of this decision being released.
[20] The plaintiff waived their right to obtain costs.
So ordered.
Judge Hmquestionable
Inferior Court