[JUDGEMENT FOR PLAINTIFF] Klaus vs Vice City Police Department

[Klaus]

JOSE L. BECERRA Personal injury lawyer

From: ProLawyers Co., Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 08459 To: Vice City Courthouse, Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 00101

I. Opening Statement

Dear Judges and the State of Argonath,
ProLawyers Co. are hereby suing the following Person(s) of the state of Vice City, United States of Argonath on behalf of our client Klaus:

• Vice City Police Department.

II. Summary

Our client Klaus would like to put fourth a claim for personal injury, against the Vice City Police Department, for compensation for both the physical and psychological damages suffered by my client. He is also putting fourth a claim for the damage caused to his aircraft, a Maverick helicopter, that received multiple gun shots by a Hughes M230 Chain Gun attached to an an aircraft, a Sea Sparrow, piloted by the Vice City Police Department.

The incident happened on the evening of 7th December 2017. My client Klaus was piloting his aircraft, a Maverick, over the airways of Little Havana when he was suddenly hit by several gun shots coming from a Hughes M230 Chain Gun attached to an the Sea Sparrow. My client was forced in to an emergency landing and landed his aircraft on a nearby roof. Footage of this incident was caught on his aircrafts camera. My client suffered terrible emotional distress afterwards and also suffered whip lash from the emergency landing. He was also forced the pay to repair his aircraft afterwards.

III. Charges

• Vice City Police Department Pilot:

1) Police Misconduct.
Police misconduct concerns criminal offenses relating to the abuse of public office and violations of statutes or regulations governing the exercise or performance of law enforcement duties and responsibilities. Types of unethical conduct or misconduct include excessive use of force, unlawful searches and seizures, false arrest, failure to render medical aid or prevent suicide, and deprivation of civil rights. Legal issues include standards of conduct and police procedures, disciplinary actions, procedures and penalties and civil liability.

We believe that that the Pilot, Huntsman, has shown Police Misconduct by firing at my client Klaus's aircraft without reason. Huntsman failed to give warning to my client of any on-going situation and did not take absolute precaution when using the Hughes M230 Chain Gun that is mounted on the Sea Sparrow. We therefore find his actions to be both dangerous and reckless and would like to ask the court to further charge Huntsman for Police Misconduct.

IV. Demands

• $500 compensation for medical expenses.
• $4000 compensation for emotional distress.
• $2500 compensation for property damage (Maverick).
• The pilot, Huntsman, to be charged with Police Misconduct.

V. Evidence

• Video evidence recorded from within the Maverick:

• Evidence of damage:

https://postimg.org/gallery/dc2mb19w/
The images shown are of two conversations with Spray N Go Mechanic Kimberly Purp Lee. The first three are of when Klaus dropped the Maverick there for an analysis of damages and for repairs. The second three are of Klaus receiving the Maverick back after it had gone through several repairs.

VI. Requests

• We would like to summon Kimberly Purp Lee to court in order to make her statement regarding these events that took place at Spray N Go on the evening of Thursday 7th December. We would like her to give full analysis of damages and expenses regarding the necessary repairs.

Thank you,
ProLawyers Co.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "Klaus v Vice City Police Department" Proceeding Number: VC-CIVIL0001/2017

COURT MINUTE

The Court will process the case once service of the civil complaint (notice of the civil case) is given to the Vice City Police Department, the plaintiff may also wish to enjoin the pilot Huntsman as a second defendant if they wish to do so. Upon service of the civil complaint, the defendant(s) will have two weeks to prepare submissions on their liability as well as any relevant court motions.

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        Upon service of the civil complaint, any defendants shall have two weeks to present their submissions on their liability and to submit any relevant motions to defer the civil case.

[2].        Liberty to apply.

ORDERED, on this 7th day of December, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Huntsman]

Vice City Police Department
Office of High Command
Chief of Police
Gabriel "Huntsman" Adams

I am Gabriel Adams, the Chief of the Vice City Police Department, and I will be representing the Vice City Police Department in the case.
I am also the officer who was involved in opening fire against the plaintiff's vehicle.

STATEMENT OF DEFENCE

Honorable Judge,

I, Gabriel Adams, VCPD Chief of Police, on 7th December, 2017, responded to an aerial pursuit of a homicide suspect. As per VCPD Regulations and Procedures, as the suspect was evading in an aircraft, an armed combat helicopter, Sea Sparrow, has been lifted into the air. It was piloted by me.

The aerial pursuit took place for good three - five minutes above the areas of Vice Port, Little Haiti, and Little Havana. At some point, the plaintiff started interfering with the pursuit. He started following the homicide suspect, therefore preventing the police units from effectively subduing the suspect. On several occasions I had to restrain from firing because the plaintiff would constantly get into my line of fire. Therefore, the plaintiff could easily be charged with obstruction of justice. Quote from the constitution:

Act VIII
    Anyone who causes, by their presence or by disrupting the tasks of law enforcement personnel, is
    to be charged with obstruction of justice. Anyone refusing to cooperate with law enforcement
    personnel with reasonable cause to act can be charged with obstruction of justice as well.

What happened next is that amidst all of the confusion, as there were two helicopters in the area, I have accidentally opened fire against the wrong helicopter. As soon as I realised that this was not the homicide suspects helicopter, I discontinued fire immediately. This was nothing but an unfortunate accident caused by the plaintiff interfering with police bussines and disrupting the tasks of law enforcement personnel with their presence.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the VCPD also has a video footage recorded from the dash camera of the Sea Sparrow helicopter, which can be found here:


VCPD Cadet Ghiless, who has been piloting the police maverick at the time, can also, if needed, testify that the Plaintiff was indeed on the scene and was interfering with the pursuit.

As the footage shows, the Plaintiff has been interrupting the tasks of law enforcement personel, in this case, an aerial pursuit of a homicide suspect who has been wanted for several cops of cop murder as well. We firmly believe that all of this could have prevented if the plaintiff would not have chosen to interfer with the aerial pursuit.

OFFER OF SETTLEMENT

The Vice City Police Department is willing to meet the Plaintiff's demands for compensation for the damages done to their vehicle, however, 2500 ARD is an absurd sum to demand. The department is aware that for a fact that no repair service in the city charges that much for repairing ones vehicle. We are willing to pay 1000 ARD for the damages done to the plaintiff's helicopter.


We are,willing to pay the 4000 ARD demand for emotional distress.

We, however, refuse to agree to any other charges given, as it has been established that this whole unfortunate accident has been plaintiff's own fault. We find the demand to compensate for medical charges rather strange, as the bullets that the VCPD Attack Helicopter is equipped with are not meant to penetrate the vehicle, but to simply disable it. Therefore, we fail to see how the plaintiff could have gotten hurt in the process.

((OOC: In other words, this charge is drawn out of the plaintiff's arse, as having your vehicle shot by a SeaSparrow does not make you loose health unless it explodes, which in this case it didn't. Please stick to reasonable demands))

We believe that this settlement offer is reasonable and of good faith, especially taken into consideration that we could have charged the plaintiff with obstruction of justice, but have decided not to.


Signed,
VCPD Chief of Police
Gabriel Adams

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "Klaus v Vice City Police Department" Proceeding Number: VC-CIVIL0001/2017

COURT MINUTE

As the defendant has replied, the requirements to serve the defendant are no longer required. The plaintiff can choose to accept or deny the settlement offered by the defendant. The judgement of these proceedings shall be reserved to be published within one week.

ORDERED, on this 7th day of December, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

[Klaus]

JOSE L. BECERRA Personal injury lawyer

From: ProLawyers Co., Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 08459 To: Vice City Courthouse, Downtown, Vice City. P.O. Box: 00101

The aerial pursuit took place for good three - five minutes above the areas of Vice Port, Little Haiti, and Little Havana. At some point, the plaintiff started interfering with the pursuit. He started following the homicide suspect, therefore preventing the police units from effectively subduing the suspect. On several occasions I had to restrain from firing because the plaintiff would constantly get into my line of fire. Therefore, the plaintiff could easily be charged with obstruction of justice.

My client did not receive any warnings of an on-going pursuit and did not have any knowledge of such and was completely unaware that the police were indeed involved in an on-going pursuit of a suspect. I believe it is part of their job as police to warn citizens if they are in dangerous situations and above everything else protect innocent lifes that may be in danger. The pilot failed to do this and made a critical mistake that further put innocent lifes in danger.

What happened next is that amidst all of the confusion, as there were two helicopters in the area, I have accidentally opened fire against the wrong helicopter. As soon as I realised that this was not the homicide suspects helicopter, I discontinued fire immediately. This was nothing but an unfortunate accident caused by the plaintiff interfering with police bussines and disrupting the tasks of law enforcement personnel with their presence.

We would further like dismiss any accusations towards my client of disrupting the police or purposely interfering with a police pursuit. We feel these accusations to be incredibly insulting as they cannot be proven with solid evidence and are merely empty accusations. This accusations could in fact damage my clients reputation and we are therefore asking for an increase in our demand for mental anguish now being $6000.

Unfortunately for the plaintiff, the VCPD also has a video footage recorded from the dash camera of the Sea Sparrow helicopter, which can be found here:
[video]

Thank you for submitting further evidence in relation to this claim. We believe this video further highlights two matters of concern:

• The pilot failed to give warning to my client of any on-going pursuit by the VC:PD, either by megaphone, a phone call, or even attempting to warn by shouting.
• The video further highlights an extremely careless use of the Hughes M230 Chain Gun, where the pilot fires 6 bursts of multiple shots without having a clear precise view of his intended target. We believe this to be an extremely careless and reckless decision taken by the pilot and his actions were a danger to civilians.

VCPD Cadet Ghiless, who has been piloting the police maverick at the time, can also, if needed, testify that the Plaintiff was indeed on the scene and was interfering with the pursuit.

Questions for the witness:

• Did you at any point warn the civilian that he was interfering with a pursuit and if so can you prove this?
• Did you at any time use your megaphone during the aerial pursuit and if so can you prove this?

As the footage shows, the Plaintiff has been interrupting the tasks of law enforcement personel, in this case, an aerial pursuit of a homicide suspect who has been wanted for several cops of cop murder as well. We firmly believe that all of this could have prevented if the plaintiff would not have chosen to interfer with the aerial pursuit.

We would also like to mention how this video does not prove beyond reasonable doubt that my client was purposely following a suspect of the police and/or deliberately trying to interfere with an on-going pursuit. For the police to come out and further accuse my client after the mistakes they have made is an utter disgrace and a failure to realise their mistakes. We also find there to be a lack of remorse towards my client.


Settlement offer:

My client has chosen to deny the settlement offered by the defendant, as we believe my client to be in a strong position regarding his claim and within reason.

Thank you,
ProLawyers Co.

[PulseEffect]

Vice City Law Courts Argonath Federal Court

From: The desk of the Honorable Alexander Treblin Address: 143 Downtown State Street, Downtown Vice City, Florida Topic: "Klaus v Vice City Police Department" Proceeding Number: VC-CIVIL0001/2017

Medium Neutral Citation:	Klaus v Vice City Police Department [2017] AFCR 13
Date of Decision:	21 December 2017
Jurisdiction:	Common Law
Before:	Treblin J
Catchwords:	CIVIL LITIGATION - Conclusion judgement - any limitations on civil actions against law enforcement officials - whether report needed in Vice City jurisdiction. LAW ENFORCEMENT LAW - Actions of one officer passes liability to state government agency or the state itself - vicarious liability - where officer accidentally shot at civilian helicopter - constitutes negligence or not - whether charge of police misconduct valid or not.
Legislation Cited:	Interim Constitution VCPD Regulations
Cases Cited:	Clarification of Argonath’s Legal System (2015) USASC 7 Gvardia v Cipone (2013) USACC (Civil) 5512 Harrison v Sinister (2017) CDC 4 LSPD Parking Case (2015) USADC 8123 Kasper v Kangaroo (2013) USACC (Civil) 7410 Kovansky et al v Federal Bureau of Investigation (Unreported, United States of Argonath District Court, Peter J, 2016) Marques v Delonte (2017) CDC 1 Re Federal Bureau of Investigation Director’s Reference (2012) USASC 2 Re Law Enforcement Abuse (2010) USACR 201 Rapture v O’Connor [2012] AFCR 5 Remuand v Asif [2016] AFCR 1 United States of Argonath v Amal [2017] AFCR 2 United States of Argonath v Kevin (2016) USADC 1772
Texts Cited:	None.
Parties:	Klaus (Plaintiff) Vice City Police Department (Defendant)
Representation:	Jose Becerra (P) Gabriel Adams (D)

JUDGEMENT

[1].        On the 7th of December 2017, the Vice City Police Department (the ‘Defendant’) was conducting an aerial pursuit of a suspect in a helicopter over the mainland. Gabriel Adams, who for the purpose of these proceedings was the Chief of Police, was commandeering a sea-sparrow, was also involved in that pursuit. Klaus (the ‘Plaintiff’) was also in a helicopter and was following the pursuit, when the plaintiff disengaged from the pursuit. Mr Adams proceeded to follow the plaintiff and then shoot several rounds from his sea-sparrow at the plaintiff’s helicopter.

[2].        Shortly after the plaintiff filed a civil complaint and summons in this Court alleging that the defendant’s officer, Mr Adams engaged in police misconduct.¹ As well as claiming personal injury suffered by the plaintiff because of the incident. There are various issues to address in this case, firstly that is whether a report against Mr Adams was required, secondly whether the defendant should be liable for the actions of Mr Adams and thirdly whether the claims have any basis in law.

Whose Liability Is It?

[3].        In Rapture v O’Connor,² Gandalf P stated that cases against individual officers can only proceed if they had been dishonourably discharged. This statement is somewhat misguided as it ignores a number of scenarios and matters that the legal system should be able to adjudicate and hear.

[4].        The present circumstances present us with a case that the plaintiff is suing a government agency; the Vice City Police Department, who employed the officer who used the sea sparrow. It is apparent that the plaintiff is attempting to sue the state for the actions of a law enforcement official, so a question must be asked whether or not the State is directly liable and if so, what are any limitations or conditions of a civil lawsuit regarding the actions of a law enforcement official.

[5].        In United States of Argonath v Amal,³ I discussed the usage of persuasive precedent and its application in this jurisdiction judicial system.⁴ It is important to note that our Constitution was adapted from the San Andreas Constitution, this means that our common law can also somewhat derive from decisions made in the San Andreas Courts. For a discussion on the legal system of Argonath, see Gandalf P’s comments in Clarification of Argonath’s Legal System (2015) USASC 7.

[6].        Recent developments in the decisions of the courts of San Andreas have made it abundantly clear that a complaint to the relevant law enforcement organisation is necessary for a civil action, particularly one that involves the conduct of a law enforcement official, to be continued.⁵ Marcel SCLJ stated in the LSPD Parking Case;⁶

This case lists the State as defendant, due to officers allegedly breaching the constitution while on duty for the San Andreas Police Department (SAPD). While the State bears the ultimate responsibility for any of its workers, it also provides some degree of protection for them. This is to prevent the creation of numerous legal cases where a much simpler dispute settlement procedure would be sufficient. To establish such procedure, the SAPD has adopted the practice of having its higher ranking officers investigate complaints that are sent to them via their website.

The Supreme Court finds that it should honour the complaint procedure used by the SAPD. Not using it would undermine the SAPD's ability to self-govern its employees and would lead to the creation of numerous legal cases. If the outcome of a complaint procedure prompts for further legal action, then the Court shall be eager to facilitate such cases. Such cases should then be addressing the officers themselves as defendants, because the State has fullfilled its responsibility by providing the complaint procedure via its delegate agency, the SAPD.

[Emphasis original]

[7].        There are some key points to highlight from this judgement, firstly the Vice City Police Department or any government agency has the same liability as the state and vice versa, that means any action brought against it or the state, where the state is being sued for actions done by a government agency, are to have equal liability, meaning plaintiffs can choose whether or not to sue the government agency or the state itself. They cannot choose both to maximise financial gain.

[8].        Secondly, the State or the government agency protects its workers as it has “ultimate responsibility” for them. This means there is a relationship of vicarious liability, that is, someone else can be liable for the actions of the other. In this case, law enforcement officials’ powers are derived and authorised by the State or government agency, in this circumstance, the State or government agency can be vicarious liable for the actions of the law enforcement officials. However this has a limitation, the State or government agency should not be vicariously liable for those law enforcement officials who are employed on a casual basis (ARPD Officers), in those circumstances, those officers are to be liable for their own actions. In regards to a contradiction in this paragraph whereby ARPD Officers’ powers are derived and authorised by the State, their employment relationship with the State is so volatile that their actions may severely burden the financial well being of the State due to extensive civil litigation.⁷ For that reason the State will not be liable for their actions.

[9].        However those that are actually employed or retained in official positions of the law enforcement agency, that is having passed some sort of academy or training phase, make the state and/or government agency vicarious liable. This does not mean that the individual officer escapes liability, they however may be counter-sued by the State for gross negligence of duties, corruption or otherwise if the evidence shows severe civil or criminal wrongdoing on the individual officer’s part.

[10].      For these reasons, the State/government agency should be held liable for the actions of properly trained and qualified law enforcement officials who are properly employed by either the Vice City Police Department, Federal Bureau of Investigations or other law enforcement agencies.

How To Establish Liability Then?

[11].      In the LSPD Parking Case, it was interesting to note that the plaintiff sued the State without a proper complaint, it is also acknowledged by Stormeus CJ in Remuand v Asif,⁸ that in order for a civil case against a law enforcement official or the State, in the circumstance where the law enforcement official is an actual employee of the State’s law enforcement agencies, to proceed there must be a ‘complaint’ put to the relevant law enforcement agency.

[12].      At the conclusion of such a complaint, the superiors of the officer complained about, usually make a conclusion stating whether or not the officer was wrong in conducting their duties. This has acted as committal or pre-trial test for any potential civil litigation against law enforcement officials or the state itself. This complaints procedure is already in place in this jurisdiction, see the Vice City Police Department’s complaints board.

[13].      If the complaint is upheld in the complainant’s favour, then the state or government agency can be discharged from liability and passes to the individual officer. If the complaint however is upheld in the officer’s favour, for whom the complaint was issued against, then the state or government agency continues to retain liability until the conclusion of any proceedings. A court should be always entitled to not take into consideration findings of a complaint,⁹ and the court is always entitled to bar or restrict the ability of the state to submit the findings of such a complaint to the court for the purposes of just, quick and cheap resolution of proceedings.¹⁰

So What About The Present Situation?

[14].      It is important to note that there doesn’t really exist a mechanism for a procedurally fair complaints procedure to investigate the actions of the Chief of Police of the defendant. As there is no superior, aside from the very busy ARPD Commissioner. As the Court has just stated in order for liability to transfer to the individual, there must be a complaint. As there is no such process for a procedurally fair complaint, the state/government agency retains liability forever, regardless of Gandalf P’s comments in O’Connor.

[15].      For this reason this civil case shall surpass the complaints procedure required by common law.

Is the Basis of the Civil Action Valid?

[16].      Any civil case requires a basis for action.¹¹ Often this involves an act or omission made by the defendant. It is appropriate to say that in this case, the acts committed by the Mr Adams do constitute the tort of trespass or were negligent. The tort of trespass is not well documented in the common law and to state simply, it is understood in the sense that if someone hurts you, then you may instigate a civil action albeit, with that someone still being subject to usual criminal processes and sanctions too. Negligence is properly understood to be where an individual fails in upholding their duty of care towards another party and causes harm due to an act or omission that breaches that duty of care.

[17].      The plaintiff alleges police misconduct and stated in his civil complaint the following:

Police misconduct concerns criminal offenses relating to the abuse of public office and violations of statutes or regulations governing the exercise or performance of law enforcement duties and responsibilities. Types of unethical conduct or misconduct include excessive use of force, unlawful searches and seizures, false arrest, failure to render medical aid or prevent suicide, and deprivation of civil rights. Legal issues include standards of conduct and police procedures, disciplinary actions, procedures and penalties and civil liability.

We believe that that the Pilot, Huntsman, has shown Police Misconduct by firing at my client Klaus's aircraft without reason. Huntsman failed to give warning to my client of any on-going situation and did not take absolute precaution when using the Hughes M230 Chain Gun that is mounted on the Sea Sparrow. We therefore find his actions to be both dangerous and reckless and would like to ask the court to further charge Huntsman for Police Misconduct.

[Emphasis original]

[18].      Whilst police misconduct or more properly law enforcement abuse does constitute a proper civil action basis, it is important to establish under what basis law enforcement abuse can be prosecuted by civil plaintiffs. Looking to the San Andreas jurisdiction for a foundation on which can be improved, Louis 3J stated in Re Law Enforcement Abuse:¹²

If you were Abused, The court is a place where you can Sue the law enforcement member. His rights can be removed and a fine may be issued. Roleplayed evidence is NOT Needed here and a process of cases will be faster.

If you were abused and you don't have "Roleplayed" Evidence, this is the place.

What does count as Abuse?

• Refusing an Investigation after you requested one.
  This only Takes effect when you GIVE UP immediately after you commit the crime with a cop. Running away after commiting the crime to see if you can escape and using /gu as your last resource with 1HP is obviously a waste of time to the Law Enforcement Member.
• Being aimed/shooted when civilian
  Are you a civilian and a Law Enforcement Member is aiming / shooting you for no reason? Use the Courts! Remember, being a civilian is considered when your name is NOT orange or lightblue
• Being frisked/interrogated without a warrant
  If a Law Enforcement Member tries to frisk you, or your car, or take you to interrogation, you have the right to ask a reasonable Reason and a warrant. If no warrant is provided by any higher ranked they have NO right to frisk/interrogate you!
• Law Enforcement Members entering your property without a warrant
  Are you on your house? Cops entered without any reason? You have the right to ask for a warrant, if they cannot give it, they MUST Leave. A warrant can only by given by Judges, SAPD Lieutenants+ or FBI Division Assistants+. If a suspect is hiding in your property they have FULL rights to enter to your property without a warrant, and remove you from it.
• Law Enforcement Members taking your Car
  Your car is being taken away without a reason? The Law Enforcement Member doesn't has a searching warrant? You have the right to keep your car. They cannot force you to give it to them!
• Being suspected for anti constitutional reasons
  The Law Enforcement Member is suspecting you for things that goes against the constitution? Give up immediately to the police, request an investigation and then sue the Law Enforcement Member! Do not let anyone abuse your rights! If you do not give up immediately and then run, you will be most likely Killed and the investigation can be refused!

[Emphasis original]

[19].      Whilst some of the statements now do not apply, it is important to note that the basis for which the plaintiff is suing for, fits within one of the basis stated by Louis 3J. Furthermore according to the VCPD Regulations, to which the Court will look to, on a case by case basis states:

10.3.1 VCPD Officer must make sure not to injure or otherwise place in danger officer/citizen lives with the use of their firearms.
10.6. VCPD Officer is not allowed to use his weapons against innocent citizens.

[Emphasis original]

[20].      It is also clear that if a law enforcement official breaks their own regulations and causes harm to a citizen or other party, it establishes a clear basis for an action in law enforcement abuse against the individual officer or the State.

So What Happened and The Findings?

[21].      I have already stated what happened and the defendant as well as the individual officer has admitted liability to the incident in question. It is now appropriate to address the defences put forward by the defendant. They contend that the plaintiff was interfering with the pursuit, which constituted an obstruction to justice, which also caused confusion amongst the aerial pursuit and this led to the defendant’s officer shooting the plaintiff’s helicopter.

[22].      The defendants refuted this with an argument suggesting that there was no warnings to tell the plaintiff that there was an aerial pursuit as well as criticising the use of the sea-sparrow’s weapons so carelessly. They also pointed out a lack of remorse in the defendant’s admission to liability and denied the settlement offer.

[23].      Firstly addressing the defendant officer’s conduct, it is appropriate to say that he did breach his duty of care towards the public when firing his sea-sparrow at the plaintiff’s helicopter, this is reinforced by s 10.3.1 of the VCPD Regulations.

[24].      However, the defendant’s officer is not fully liable for his actions because it is appropriate to say that the suspect then veered off onto another direction to which the plaintiff followed. When the defendant’s officer fired the sea-sparrow’s weapons at 0:36 of the defendant’s video, the plaintiff should have immediately disengaged or changed direction from the pursuit. ((When the suspect lagged at 0:36 of defendant’s video, Klaus leaves Huntsman’s screen and continues to follow the suspect and by the time he does reappear on Huntsman’s screen, he is so far out of range to make identification of his nametag hard as well as still being in the general direction of the suspect)) As to the claims by the plaintiff that he did not know it was an aerial pursuit, I reject this proposition, two things should’ve told him that it was an aerial pursuit by police. One, that the suspect was being pursued by a police helicopter, which he was able to see out of his forward view (see 0:36 of the video) as well as secondly the shots fired by the sea-sparrow at 0:36 of the video. These shots regardless of their intent can serve as warning shots and the plaintiff should’ve heard this. For this I find 40% liability of the incident to the plaintiff. The remaining 60% liability is to be handed to the defendant.

[25].      It is not appropriate to address the claims of obstruction to justice as these are matters for law enforcement and prosecutors to consider.

Remedies

[26].      In addressing remedies, the plaintiff demands medical expenses, emotional distress and property damage. Medical damages are denied, the plaintiff has not submitted medical records nor any statements by doctors or hospital staff stating he was injured as a result of the sea-sparrow’s bullets. Furthermore the statement made by the defendant to which the sea-sparrow’s bullets are meant to disable helicopters were not addressed in reply and as such the Court takes this into consideration. As such the Court denies medical damages/expenses.

[27].      In addressing emotional distress, this was changed to a higher value mid-case because of the defendant’s submissions. The Court will not entertain higher demands because of Court action or submissions made during Court. If the plaintiff instiaged litigation for the basis of pursuing remedies, the plaintiff’s lawyer should’ve advised him that the defendant would’ve submitted such defences. A good advocate must always anticipate what the other side will be advance in submissions and relay that information to its clients. The defendant’s originally stated that they were willing to admit to $4,000 in emotional distress damages, the original amount claimed by the defendant. For the findings of liability made above, I order that the defendant is to pay the plaintiff the amount of $2,400 ARD for emotional distress.

[28].      In addressing property damage, the plaintiff submitted evidence of the mechanic giving him a run-down on the repairs. I find that the full amount of $2,500 should be used as a foundation, applying liability of the defendant. I order that the defendant is to pay the plaintiff the amount of $1,500 ARD for property damage.

[29].      In addressing whether or not the defendant should be charged with “police misconduct”, the plaintiff should be writing a complaint to law enforcement authorities to consider prosecuting, the Court does not order prosecutions as this is a breach of the separation of powers and furthermore is not the Court’s job to be bringing cases against individuals or parties.

I certify that the preceding twenty-nine (29) numbered paragraphs are a true copy of the Reasons for Judgment herein of the Honourable Justice Treblin.

Register

THE COURT ORDERS THAT:

[1].        That judgement for the plaintiff be entered into.

[2].        That defendant is to pay the plaintiff the sum of $3,978 ARD (inclusive of 2% interest).

ORDERED, on this 31st day of December, 2017.

Signed,

Alexander Treblin
Alexander Treblin
Judge

_______________________
Footnotes
¹ Plaintiff, ‘Civil Complaint’, Submission in Klaus v Vice City Police Department, VC-CIVIL0001/2017, 7 December 2017.
² [2012] AFCR 5.
³ [2017] AFCR 2.
⁴ Ibid [6]-[8] (Treblin J).
⁵ See e.g. LSPD Parking Case (2015) USADC 8123 [1]-[2] (Marcel SCLJ); Kovansky et al v Federal Bureau of Investigation (Unreported, United States of Argonath District Court, Peter J, 2016); Kasper v Kangaroo (2013) USACC (Civil) 7410; Gvardia v Cipone (2013) USACC (Civil) 5512; United States of Argonath v Kevin (2016) USADC 1772 [1] (Marcel SCLJ).
⁶ (2015) USADC 8123 [1]-[2] (Marcel SCLJ).
⁷ See Re Federal Bureau of Investigation Director’s Reference (2012) USASC 2 (Gandalf P).
⁸ [2016] AFCR 1.
⁹ See Harrison v Sinister (2017) CDC 4.
¹⁰ See Marques v Delonte (2017) CDC 1 [1] (Treblin J).
¹¹ See Court Services.
¹² (2010) USACR 201.

JUDGEMENT SUMMARY
Today, the Argonath Federal Court found in favour of the plaintiff in a civil matter that involved the questions of vicarious liability and law enforcement abuse. It awarded liability of 60% to the defendant because of the plaintiff’s actions and gave the sum of $3,978 ARD to the plaintiff.
 

• This statement is not intended to be a substitute for the reasons of the Court or to be used in any later consideration of the Court’s reasons.

~Distributed by authority of the Courts of Argonath~