Jump to content

Baruch, et al. z. Surgeon-General: Ruling, 370 ES


garentoft
 Share

Recommended Posts

AULIC COURT OF THE KINGDOM OF HANSETI-RUSKA

 

Baruch, et al. z. ve Surgeon-General

 

6BiiqrNFks7XsWPlumnb2DcY_MkWqPZoZFbaBkYZa5nh9g5IYqVes0-Tb3XGJhscTNyDD6beIUsIwaUdkmEaFiFfLB6VFdGHsHVf35s9ZGtDOOELdqS9LnZoskpMXYe4siWBBKDu

 

4th of Joma and Umund, 370 ES

 


 

Jovenaars

Mr. Lauritz F. Jensen (Presiding)

Lady Erika L. Kortevich (Assistant)

Lady Annika A. Vyronov (Assistant)

 

Plaintiff

Lord Aldrik Baruch (on behalf of Lord Ruslan E. Baruch and Lord Alric S. Ruthern)

 

Defense

Aestenia Aevaris

Lord Maric L. Ruthern  (Lord Palatine)

 

Testimonies

William Carolus

Aestenia Aevaris

HRH Otto A. Barbanov

High Pontiff Jude II

 

THE FOLLOWING CHARGES WERE BROUGHT AGAINST THE DEFENDANT;

504.041: Where the dishonest or dishonourable conduct of one party leads to economic, reputational or physical harm to another party and such harm was a reasonably foreseeable consequence of their dishonest or dishonourable conduct, the offending party shall be obliged to pay damages to the injured party in an amount determined by the Court;

 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE VERDICT BROUGHT BY THE JOVENAARS;

Jovenaar Jensen, joined by Kortrevich and Vyronov; 

The Defendant, the Surgeon-General, Aestenia Aevaris, is found guilty on the charge of tort  in the form of reputational harm in regards to Lord Matyas Baruch, but not guilty on the charge of tort in the form of reputational harm in regards to Ser Viktor Rauen. The Defendant shall be required to pay 1500 mina in damages to Lord Ruslan Baruch.

 

THE FOLLOWING IS THE RATIONALE FOR THE DECISION FROM THE PRESIDING JOVENAAR;

 

On the charge of Tort in regards to Lord Matyas Baruch;

Jovenaar Jensen delivered the opinion of the court:

According to the witness testimony of the Defendant herself, she did not receive the consent for the autopsy, nor the cremation, of Lord Matyas Baruch, as is legally required as per Section 414.02 of the Haurul Caezk (in this, the Aulic Court does interpret defacement to include the cremation of the body). Despite the fact that the body had been in the morgue for over a year, the Defendant never once attempted to contact the family of the deceased to get them to pick up the body, citing that it was “not her obligation” to do so. Subsequently, the Defendant proceeded to cremate the body, once more without asking for the consent of the deceased’s family. No matter the duration a body has been left in the morgue, it is required that consent be given for an autopsy and for the cremation of the body. The Defendant’s Legal counsel then tried to appeal that, if the body had not been cremated, it could potentially have caused the outbreak of a plague within the city of Karosgrad, however, it is the belief of the Aulic Court, that such a plague would also have been avoidable if the Surgeon-General had not been negligent in her duties, and simply notified the families to pick up the bodies before they fell into a state where they would run the risk of spreading disease across the Capital. The Aulic Court does view that the Defendant caused reputational damage to not only Lord Matyas Baruch, but also the entire House of Baruch, by preventing them from being able to hold a proper Canonist burial for the deceased, thus preventing them from following their duties as respectful Canonists, which is supported by a letter from the High Pontiff, and therefore finds the Defendant guilty of tort.

 

On the charge of Tort in regards to Ser Viktor Rauen;

Jovenaar Jensen delivered the opinion of the court:

As Ser Viktor Rauen was a Knight of the Marian Retinue, with no family nor will, the Crown is viewed to have been the first and foremost authority in regards to his autopsy and cremation. Whether or not approval was received for this cremation, it would be upon the Crown to direct the Office of the High Justiciar to conduct an investigation and subsequent summons for this, and not upon that of a private individual with no authority to do so. Therefore, the Defendant is not found guilty of tort.

 

It is so ordered.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Obrecht laughed as his father told him the result of the trial. "Papej, remind me niet to ever marry a Baruch. If it takes them over a year to remember to fetch their lord from the morgue, Ich will be there for a century at least."

Link to post
Share on other sites

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.



×
×
  • Create New...