People's Court Blog - 10 5 2012 - Friday

Challenge Check-Up: It has been one week of the October Challenge. I was hoping to be on my way to success. I was not able to post Friday's blog until today. I will try harder next week. It will give me something to work towards. How are you doing for your October Challenge? Please share your resolution and update in the comments. We can all try for success together!

Grant And The Unleashed Pitbull

Grant is suing Theodore for $1000.00. This is for vet bills and pain and suffering for a dog attack. Grant was walking his Yorkie on a leash when a Pitbull, not on a leash, attacked. Grant took his little dog to the vet. Thank goodness the little dog survived an attack from the Pitbull. It would seem rather straighforward that Theodore would be responsible for the vet bills. He claims that the dog does not belong to him. Who does the the Pitbull belong to? Theodore's roommate. Why isn't the roommate in court? She is in Rikers Island. Where is the Pitbull? He lives with Theodore. Remember if it walks like a duck, sounds like a duck, it is a duck! I love when the Judge uses this reference! The Judge rules that the Pitbull belongs to Theodore, so he is responsible for the vet bills. Grant receives $797.01. Grant does not receive pain and suffering, although I am sure he experienced both! Why wasn't the Pitbull on a leash? Why does this seem like a common occurrence? Why are there so many dog attack cases that involve Pitbulls? Please help to answer these questions!

Tialonee And The Con Man

Tialonee is suing Adrian for $2000.00. This is a case of a con man taking advantage of a young, naive girl. Tialonee is 18 years old. She thought she was buying a car from Adrian. She gave him $2000.00 and he signed a contract with her. The contract was notarized. Adrian points out that in the state of Florida, a notarized contract contains certain elements that are missing from this one. Tialonee shows text messages between the two of them concerning the planned purchase of the car. Adrian points out that there are apps available for fake texting. Tialonee says they were friends, Adrian said they dated. Tialonee said they met on Facebook. Adrain says they met on an Internet chat site. Tialonee said she gave him $2000.00 for a car. Adrian says she was holding the money for him. There is so much that neither of them agree on, it is almost as if they were having two different realities, that is the essence of a con!

The car Tialonee was buying was a 2012 Impala that cost $18,000.  Why would Adrian sell it to her for $2000.00? Exactly! Think about it. Of course it is too good to be true. The entire situation was orchestrated to discredit Tialonee. I give Tialonee so much credit for bringing Adrian to court. The Judge sees right through this polished con man. Tialonee will get her money back. We all need to be constantly on guard to protect ourselves from situations that are too good to be true. Remember there is no free lunch!

Ferris And Progressive Glasses

Ferris is suing Larry for $654.00. This is for the cost of glasses that Ferris bought and cannot wear. Ferris went for an eye exam and had new glasses made. These glasses were different from his previous ones. He received progressive glasses and cannot see with them. He wants to return them and get his money back. Why would he leave the store with the glasses if he could not see? He did go back and demand his money back. The store policy is no refunds and a one year guarantee. This is stated on the receipt. Ferris is not entitled to his money back, he is entitled to have the glasses fixed. Larry agrees that he will do everything to fix the problem.

Why didn't Ferris give Larry a chance to fix the glasses before he brought Larry to court? This is something we will never know. People need to try to resolve their problems before rushing to court. Now, Ferris can return to Larry's store and get his glasses fixed so he will be able to see clearly.

Please share your thoughts in the comments. Thank you for joining me.

Stay Updated - Please Subscribe

We have it in our power to start the world over again.
~Thomas Paine

People's Court: 6-19-12: Accountability

We all need to take responsibility for our own actions. When we do something or allow something to happen, we need to step up. Of course, if someone is refusing to take ownership of their actions, it is important to be able to address the situation. The person wronged needs to be able to prove what happened. Without proof, there is no way to hold someone accountable for their actions.

This case is so complicated you need a score card to keep track.

1, A woman asks her friend's girlfriend to help her out.

2. She has lived with her previously and asks to move in again.

3.The boyfriend and his girlfriend have violated existing restraining orders.

4. The girlfriend is sent to jail because she has also violated her probation.

5. She is on probation for stabbing the boyfriend.

6. She spends several months in jail.

7. While she is in jail many people have access to her apartment.

The actual case is about the theft of her 62 inch television. She thinks the woman living with her is responsible for the theft.(see #1 and #2) Unfortunately for her, she does not have any proof. Since   so may people have been in and out of the apartment, no one knows what really happened. There is no evidence to find this woman accountable for the theft of the television. 

A woman is walking her dog on a leash. All of a sudden a larger dog runs to them and attacks the small dog. The woman gets bit trying to keep the larger dog from hurting her small dog. A neighbor tries to help, getting the large dog to let go of the smaller dog. The owner of the dog is not home, but her mother realizes the dog has gotten out and goes to see what has happened. The woman who was bit is taken to the emergency room for medical treatment. The small dog was taken to the vet and was lucky to have only superficial wounds. The owner of the larger dog states the woman was bit by her own dog. She does not think she should be responsible for the bills. Also, since her dog is a pitbull mix, she thinks that is why she is being targeted. Since her dog caused the woman to get bit, no matter which dog did it, she would be responsible. The owner of the larger dog has made no effort to find out how her dog got out of their yard. This is not responsible behavior for a dog owner. She is held accountable for the medical and vet bills.

A tow truck driver damages a car while he is delivering it. He admits the accident is his fault, he went down a one way street. For some reason he does not feel he should have to pay for it. He says his employer could have gone through the insurance company. The employer agrees this was an option, but he would have had to fire him to satisfy the insurance company. The decision made is to let the employee keep his job and to have him pay off the damages. He denies this and says he agreed to pay  only the deductible. This does not make any sense. Why would his employer pay for these damages? Why would he think he was not accountable for his actions? And to make matters worse, he quit without notice. There is no question that the tow truck driver caused the damages and is held responsible. 

It is refreshing to watch these cases and see justice served. People should not make accusations without proof, refuse to pay when their own dog causes injuries and shirk their responsibility when they admit they caused an accident. It is time that people are held accountable for their actions.

Please let me know what you think. Thank you for joining me today.

Believe you can and you are halfway there.  -Theodore Roosevelt