Guild Wars 2

{
Thanks for the kind comments! All this opinion writing I’ve been doing had to come in useful in the “real world” somewhere…

This was by far the most fun I’ve had writing legal stuff.

loneknight: I forgot about that… Darn! I had just read that, too. I just started GW2 a month ago and hadn’t played GW1 so I’ve been trying to absorb as much lore as possible.

stpetemermaid: I can’t very well write an opinion without citing to proper precedent, now can I? I’m not sure if you’re familiar with Twombly, but for the non-US attorneys, The funny thing is, in U.S. law, Twombly is actually the proper Supreme Court case for that proposition. The defendant there is actually Bell Atlantic… but I had to come up something less distinctive.

}

ANALYSIS
A Motion to Dismiss is an early dispositive action to test the legal sufficiency of the facts to which Plaintiff attests. Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss cannot be granted unless Plaintiffs are unable to demonstrate that they are plausibly entitled to relief under the facts they have alleged. Bell’s Mulch for Healthy Sylvari v. Twombly, 550 T. 544, 546 (5910). Under Twombly, this court is required to draw all reasonable inferences in Plaintiff’s favor and assume that Plaintiff’s factual allegations are true. See id. at 555.

Regarding Plaintiff’s first claim, the elements of a negligence action are: duty, breach, causation, and damages. It is clear that Defendant had a duty to Defendant to not create a toy that would injure a child. Taking all of Plaintiff’s facts as true, it is also clear that Defendant breached that duty and that damages resulted as a proximate cause of that breach. Regarding Plaintiff’s second claim, Divinity’s Reach follows the strict liability doctrine set forth in § 402A of the Sixth Restatement of Torts, which imposes liability on “a seller of any product in a defective condition unreasonably dangerous to the user or consumer or to his property,” regardless of the degree of care taken in the production.” Here, as a seller/purveyor of the Princess Dolls, this court finds that, taking all of Plaintiff’s facts as true, that Defendant failed to maintain his products in a fashion that was not unreasonably dangerous to any common consumer. At this stage, the court finds that, taking all of Plaintiff’s proffered facts to be true, that Plaintiff has stated a theory under which Defendant Tixx is a proper party in this case for both negligence and strict products liability.

Notably, this court takes judicial notice of the fact that Defendant’s Toyboxes have been all over the news recently.² This court takes further notice of the fact that she has been nastily tricked by the various enticing boxes laying about everywhere and was required to call upon the Marshals to defend herself from the onslaught of Princess Dolls.³ It is therefore plausible that other of Tixx’s so-called “amusements” and “toys” might have malfunctioned similarly.

Accordingly, Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss is denied.

² See, e.g., Lion’s Arch News Network (LANN) Transcript, 78th Day of Colossus (noting that while several Human and Sylvari children have been injured, Norn children have mostly eaten the toys, and Charr children have disassembled them to build novel weapons that had been heretofore uninvented.)

³ The judge in this case has been advised by her doctor that she must stand while at the bench so as to allow her rear to heal properly.

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED THAT:

(1) Defendant’s Rule 12(b)(6) Motion to Dismiss [#4] is DENIED.
(2) The Magistrate Judge is directed to manage discovery. Depositions are due to this court before pretrial motions are filed.
(3) Pretrial motions are due by the 2nd day of the Season of Zephyr.
(4) Trial is set for the 88th day of the Season of Zephyr.

DISTRICT COURT OF DIVINITY’S REACH, TYRIA
QUEENSDALE DIVISION

ROE, Jane (a minor), Plaintiff
v
TIXX INFINIRARIUM, Inc., Defendant

CASE NO: 475-DR-8913

Attorneys and Law Firms
Romana, Ray, Orochi, LLP, for Plaintiff
Ben-Jarvis, Green, Ellis LLP, for Defendant

OPINION
The Honorable Airemi Bex, District Judge.

This is a classic case of negligence and strict liability. The case is before this court on a ruling for a motion to dismiss filed by Defendants on the 80th day of the Season of Colossus. The court has carefully reviewed the briefs submitted by the parties. Following this careful review, the court rules that Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [#6] is DENIED.

JURISIDICTION
Plaintiff is a resident of Queensdale and Defendant’s headquarters are located in Rata Sum. Further, the amount in controversy is 500 gold, which exceeds the statutory minimum of 75 gold. Accordingly, this court has diversity jurisdiction over the parties, 28 U.S.T. Sec. 1332.

BACKGROUND¹
Plaintiff alleges that on the 74th day of Colossus, she began to play with a Princess Doll whereupon it purportedly malfunctioned and Plaintiff was injured. Plaintiff alleges that she suffered 1) a permanent disability caused by 3 projectiles embedded in Plaintiff’s right leg and buttock; 2)psychological harm caused by severely traumatic tantrum program preceding the attack; 3) a deceased Pet; and 4) psychological harm caused by deceased pet.

¹All facts are taken from the allegations filed by Plaintiff.

PROCEDURAL POSTURE
On the 74th day of Colossus, Plaintiff filed her Complaint in the present action in Courts of the Arcane Council, 1st Circuit, Rata Sum. On the 75th day of Colossus, Defendant removed this case to this court, citing diversity jursidiction. The Clerk of the Court docketed the Complaint that day [#1]. Summons were issued and returned as served on Defendants on the 75th. [#2]. Two days later, Defendant filed their Answer [#3]. Defendant filed the present Motion to Dismiss on the 78th [#4].