IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF RIDGEWAY
IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF RIDGEWAY
MITHUANGEL,
Plaintiff,
v.
MONICACULTURE and
SWEETDISSING,
Defendants.
___________________________/
CIVIL DIVISION
CASE NO.: 04-2024-CV-002516-F017
JUDGE: HON. ENFORCEMENTBEYOND
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This civil proceeding came before the Court for trial on April 8, 2024, upon the
complaint filed by mithuangel against MonicaCulture and sweetdissing, the defendants in this
civil proceeding. The Court considered the evidence presented at trial and the arguments of
counsel. The Court finds defendant MonicaCulture liable for wrongful death and battery, not
liable for civil conspiracy.
I. BACKGROUND
The plaintiff is a resident of the State of Ridgeway. The defendants are residents of the
State of Ridgeway. The plaintiff filed a complaint before the Court alleging that on March 20,
2024, while in his vehicle stopped at the intersection of Laguna Avenue and Palmer Boulevard,
in Palmer, Ridgeway, the defendants operated a vehicle in his vicinity and impeded the flow of
traffic, preventing the plaintiff from moving through the intersection. The plaintiff further alleges
that after instructing the defendants to move from the intersection, the defendants exited their
vehicle and fired upon him, causing the plaintiff to enter Palmer Boulevard in an attempt to avoid
injury. The plaintiff alleges that the defendants engaged his vehicle, damaging it to the extent of
the vehicle exploding and causing the plaintiff to eject from his vehicle, where he was
subsequently killed by gunfire from Defendants.
The plaintiff filed a civil complaint before this Court on March 22, 2024 and served the
defendant sweetdissing on the same date, alleging battery, wrongful death, and civil conspiracy.
The plaintiff sought a total of $16,000.00 of compensatory damages. On the aforementioned
date, counsel appeared on the behalf of MonicaCulture. Defendant MonicaCulture’s counsel
entered an answer to the complaint on March 25, 2024. The plaintiff’s counsel and Defendant
MonicaCulture’s counsel exchanged discovery and entered availability for trial. The Court
scheduled trial for April 8, 2024, such being conducted by means of Discord in continuous form.
Defendant sweetdissing did not appear at any stage of the proceedings and remains
unrepresented, therefore, no judgment is entered in that defendant’s regard, an entry of default is
submitted instead
II. LEGAL STANDARD
According to 1 R. Stat. § 3109, parties may be held liable in matters where absent legal
cause or justification, they cause the death of another person. Such statute states:
“Any individual who causes the death of another without legal cause or justification shall
be wrongful death and liable for compensatory damages and punitive damages up to
$5,000.”
According to 1 R. Stat. § 3102, parties may be held liable in matters they have brought
harmful or offensive contact upon another person without consent from the same. Such statute
states:
“Any individual who brings unconsented harmful or offensive contact against another
person is battery and shall be liable for punitive damages up to $4,500.”
According to 1 R. Stat. § 3111, parties may be held jointly liable when they’ve engaged
in an agreement to deprive another person of a legal right or deceive them. Such statute states:
“Any individual who conspires or colludes between one or more parties to deprive a third
party of a legal right, or deceive a third party to obtain an illegal objective shall be civil
conspiracy and liable for compensatory damages for each offending party, injunctive
relief, and $6,000 in punitive damages for each offending party.”
III. ANALYSIS
First, the elements of a wrongful death liability must be present for a party to be found
liable. A wrongful death requires that the party responsible for the death act without legal cause
or justification for the death alleged in the plaintiff’s complaint. Defendant MonicaCulture’s
counsel asserts that justification exists in the manner of self-defense, which it employs as an
affirmative defense. For a party to exercise self-defense as an affirmative defense in a wrongful
death suit, an imminent threat of death or serious bodily harm must be demonstrated. Defendant
MonicaCulture’s counsel contends that the defendant could experience a reasonable
apprehension of harm as a result of a previous undisclosed incident, though no elaboration is
provided as to what such incident may have entailed, as well as a reasonable apprehension of
harm from the plaintiff driving in the direction of the defendant’s vehicle.
Defendant MonicaCulture’s counsel further notes that the plaintiff’s evidentiary exhibit is
named “and again”, which may require an inference that a previous incident took place which the
plaintiff has refused to provide evidence for. At the time of trial, the Court had not received any
request for the production of evidence in relation to any previous incident, and such inference
would not be appropriate where the defendant has failed to request such evidence, as the plaintiff
has not been granted the opportunity to reject the possession of such evidence, the existence of
that evidence, or whether the incident alleged even occurred. Further, a person would be
reasonable in acting to drive around an obstacle in the roadway, even if such obstacle is another
vehicle blocking the path of an intersection, and the evidence does not indicate that the plaintiff
intended to strike the defendant. To the contrary, the evidence indicates that the plaintiff moved
their vehicle when authorized by a traffic control signal, and immediately pointed their direction
at course to go around the defendant’s vehicle. It must also be examined whether the defendant
was justified in continuing their attack after the plaintiff’s vehicle had gone around them, after
the destruction of the vehicle, or at the stage in which the plaintiff was ejected from his vehicle.
The Court does not believe that justification would have existed at any stage of such, as the
plaintiff would have been fleeing from the scene and not posing an active threat towards the
defendant, the destruction of his vehicle would render him incapable of striking any person with
such vehicle if such was his intent, and evidence would further indicate that the plaintiff was
wholly unarmed at the time of the incident, severely placing him at disadvantage, given that both
defendants were armed with rifles. As such, the Court cannot conclude that the defendant held
cause for a reasonable apprehension of harm at the time of the plaintiff’s death, nor could it reach
the conclusion that a previous incident took place, and as such, the defendant remains liable for
wrongful death.
Second, the elements of a battery liability must be present for a party to be held liable for
such. A battery requires that a party bring unconsented harmful or offensive contact to a person.
A life-threatening injury or attack resulting in death fulfills the standard for a battery. It must
then be examined whether consent is present, and in this matter, no evidence is presented
indicating that any party consented to the actions of the other. To the contrary, plaintiff
mithuangel is displayed to have attempted to avoid harm by attempting to drive away, as well as
attempting to avoid getting shot after his vehicle was destroyed. Defendant MonicaCulture’s
counsel exercised a similar argument as they did in wrongful death, noting that the defendant had
a reasonable belief that they were in imminent danger of death. The Court defers to the previous
finding that such actions are not justifiable, and that the plaintiff acted in a reasonable manner,
with the evidence displaying the plaintiff driving around the defendant’s vehicle. As such, the
Court concludes that the defendant is liable for battery.
Lastly, the elements of a civil conspiracy liability must be present for a party to be held
liable for such. A civil conspiracy requires that a party conspire with one or more other parties to
deprive one of a legal right, or to deceive a party for the intent of acquiring an illegal objective.
Whereas no immediate precedent exists in this issue, the Court must examine the issue on its
own. For parties to conspire with one or more other parties, the parties must reach a meeting of
the minds or agreement that would establish their intent to commit the depriving or deceitful act.
Action through sole affiliation is not sufficient to indicate a civil conspiracy, and as such, it must
be demonstrated that such an agreement took place. No motions are displayed between both
defendants indicating such, nor is the Court privy to any communications between the defendants
to such effect, and as such, the tort falls flatly on its face and requires no further analysis. The
Court must then conclude that the defendants are not liable for civil conspiracy.
IV. CONCLUSION
Accordingly, the Court concludes that Plaintiff is entitled to compensatory and punitive
damages against Defendant MonicaCulture. The Court further ORDERS that Plaintiff is entitled
to be awarded compensatory damages in the amount of $5,000.00.
SO ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED in chambers in Milton, Ridgeway
County, Ridgeway, this 23rd day of April, 2024.
ENFORCEMENTBEYOND
CHIEF JUSTICE
Copies to: Plaintiff / Defendant
iiCryptic_LawMD, Counsel of Record for Plaintiff
AlexJCabot, Counsel of Record for Defendant MonicaCulture
