People's Court Blog - 9 28 2012 - Friday

Frank And The Water Leak

Frank is suing Kevin for $5000.00. Frank is the superintendent of Kevin's building. His apartment is underneath Kevin's. Frank explains that he posted notices that the water in the building was going to be turned off due to plumbing repairs. Kevin and his girlfriend did not get the dates correct and when she went to take a shower, there was no water. Kevin called Frank and was reminded that this was the day the repairs were being done. When the repairs were finished and the water was turned back on, Frank noticed a leak in his apartment. He checked the apartments above him and found the water running in Kevin's apartment. Kevin and his girlfriend do not remember closing the drain to the tub and did not think they left the water running. 

Kevin asked Frank on two occasions to see the damage. Frank would not show him unless he was willing to take responsibility for the damages and pay $5000.00. Kevin wanted to see proof. He felt that Frank might be inflating the cost of the damages. In court, Frank does not have any proof for everything he is asking for. He claims the hardwood floor has to be replaced instead of repaired. He wants to be reimbursed for bedding that could be washed. He wants payment for a laptop, a playstation and DVDs and CDs, he claims were damaged. He has no proof, he did not even bring them to court. 

The Judge agrees there was clearly water damage due to the leak. There is no question the water came from Kevin's apartment. Since Frank has no proof of the damage to specific items, the Judge awards him $750.00. This is a major difference from the $5000.00 he was asking for. It is very important to have evidence of damages and the value of the items. Frank realizes this and admits he should have been better prepared for court. Maybe next time...

Delphena And Road Rage 

Delphena is suing Andrew for $2781.91. This is the cost of the damages to her car due to a traffic accident. The only problem with her lawsuit is that the accident was her fault. She tried to pass Andrew's van on the left side, squeezing between him and a parked car. Andrew has pictures for the court showing the position of the cars. Delphena tries to say that Andrew caused the accident, but the pictures tell a different story. Delphena admits that Andrew was driving slowly and she honked at him and passed him. Andrew shows there was one lane and there was not enough room for Delphena to fit. Delphena was very angry and after the accident told Andrew and his passenger to stay away from her or she was going to smack them. Really! This is no way to talk to someone. She also says the accident was not necessary. Well, this is absolutely true since she caused it! Andrew's van suffered minor damage that he was able to fix himself for $15.00. Since Delphena caused the accident, she is not entitled to any money. She continues to accuse Andrew of deliberately hitting her car even as she exits the courtroom. Delphena needs to realize that she caused this accident so she does not do this again in the future. Anger management might be beneficial for Delphena to curtail her road rage! What do you think?

Jamal And The Security Deposit

Jamal is suing Althea, his landlord, for $2500.00. This is for a security deposit and increased electric bills. Jamal has rented an apartment from Althea since 2006. He moved in after his mother moved out. The rent was partially covered by Section 8, a government assistance program. Althea explains that she constantly had to take Jamal to housing court for nonpayment of rent. Jamal says he has had many problems with the apartment and constantly reported them to the city. Althea and Jamal had a court settlement that instructed him to vacate the apartment by January 31, 2012. Jamal admits he did not move out until March 2, 2012. He blames this on Section 8. He claims he could not move out without their approval. He received their approval on February 15th, but did not move out until March 2. Since he did not pay the rent for March, the security deposit would cover that payment. Jamal also wants to be compensated for an increase in the electric bills since the landlord put in a dehumidifier. He is not entitled to this money. He does not get any money back. The landlord describes his behavior as arrogant and intimidating. She went through the proper channels to evict him and he took advantage by ignoring the court settlement. Hopefully he will pay his rent and get along with his new landlord. What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe

If the facts don't fit the theory, change the facts.

~Albert Einstein

People's Court: 7-26-12

Just Say NO!

Donna is suing Mitchell and Kim for $1109.00. This amount is for the money she is out after Mitchell totaled her car. How did Mitchell, a 17 year old brand new driver wind up driving Donna's car? She gave him the keys at 10:00 pm, so he could drive home to pick something up. Why? This is the question of the day that is never really answered. The legal question of who is responsible for the damages, is straightforward. Mitchell is responsible because he was driving when the accident occurred. The moral issue is who is responsible for Mitchell driving the car. There is no question that Donna is responsible. She handed over the keys. Mitchell only had his license for 11 days. He was not supposed to be driving alone at night. What was she thinking? We will never know because this case was about the legal question. Mitchell was going to sleep over Donna's home. Mitchell is the cousin of Jake, the son of Donna's boyfriend. When they all returned home after dinner, Mitchell asked if he could borrow Donna's car. He told her he needed to get his medicine. He actually wanted his X-box. We never find out what kind of medicine he needed. It is unfortunate that Donna gave Mitchell the keys to her car. Someone could have been killed in the car accident. Why didn't she tell him to call his mother, offer to drive him, find out what he really needed, why he was going alone, etc? There are so many questions that should have been asked. Donna should have said no. There were so many other ways to handle this situation. Ask questions, find out what kind of medicine he needed. Did he need it that night? Can his mother bring it to him? The answers to any of these questions would have lead to a totally different outcome. How could she hand over the keys and not know where he was going? She never asked where he lived. There are so many questions that have nothing to do with the legal issue. The answers to these questions would offer insight into how this accident occurred. Unfortunately, we do not get these answers. Kim, Mitchell's mom is counterclaiming for $1500.00. She feels the stress she endured after her son's accident entitles her money. She has responsibility in this as well. Mitchell called her from the car because he was lost and needed directions. She did not tell him to pull over and stop. She did not offer to come and get him. She knew he was not supposed to be driving at this hour by himself. She knew he was lost, since she was giving him directions. They were on the phone when the accident occurred. Kim heard the accident and rushed to the scene. She feels her experiences and the aftermath entitle her to $1500.00. What is wrong with people? I would like to hear one person admit they were wrong. Finally, Mitchell does admit that since he was driving, he was responsible for the damages. Legal responsibility and moral responsibility are two different things. I am so glad that no one was seriously injured in this accident. Cars are replaceable, people are not. Please let me know what you think.

Walk Away From A Fight!

Ella and Lisa are suing Deborah and Justin for $5000.00. Ella is Lisa's mom. Deborah is Justin's mom. This is for dental bills and pain and suffering after Justin punched Lisa in the face. Why would a 15 year old boy punch a 13 year old girl in the mouth? This is a question that is left to us to speculate on the answer. The two teenagers tell totally different stories. The only fact that is clear to us, is that Deborah and Justin are found legally responsible to pay for the dental bills and pain and suffering. Ella and Lisa do not get the full amount they are asking for. They are awarded $3000.00; the full cost of the dental bills and $600.00 towards pain and suffering. Lisa's story is that when she was walking home afterschool, she passed Justin and a group of kids. She said Justin was being hit and then he punched her as she walked by. She ran home, crying and bleeding. Her mom called 911, the police came, Justin was arrested. One of Lisa's teeth fell out and she needed major dental care. Justin's story is that he was playfighting with a group of friends. Lisa walked up to the group, slapped him and he punched her in the face. The truth is somewhere in the middle. There were witnesses to the incident, yet no one is in court to testify for either side. The two stories make no sense. Why would Lisa walk up to a group and slap Justin? Why would Justin walk up to Lisa and punch her? Either way, the legal responsibility lands on Justin. If Justin's story is true, punching Lisa was an unreasonable reaction to a slap in the face. This could have lead to even more serious consequences than losing a tooth. Justin learned a valuable lesson, punching someone is wrong, especially a girl. I feel that a fifteen year old should already know not to hit someone. Thank goodness Lisa's injuries were not worse. Hopefully they will both come to terms with what really happened, since they are the only two that know the truth. What do you think happened?

 Three Years!

Sharyn is suing Mike for $686.00. This is for the cost of lanterns that were damaged three years ago. Mike owns a rubbish removal company. He was contracted by Sharyn's across the street neighbor. When the dumpster was being removed, the cable broke and there was damage to Sharyn's property. A stone pillar with a lantern and a stonewall were damaged. Mike took responsibility for the damage. He removed the rubble and debris. He had a mason rebuild the pillar and the stonewall. When the work was completed, Sharyn informed Mike that the lantern did not work. She also wanted the working one replaced so they would match. Mike agreed. The story should end here, but it does not. Why?, what went wrong? Sharyn priced lanterns, found out they were more expensive than she originally thought. She did not want to tell Mike it would cost more money. She got tired of looking at lanterns and forgot about it. Now, three years later, she wants her yard to look nice because her son is coming hme from college. Her son is in court, yet Sharyn does not want him to testify. Is anyone of this Mike's fault? He was more than cooperative at the time.  He took responsibility for the damage. He did the repairs right away. He even agreed to replace the working lantern. Three years later, why would he have to replace the lanterns? Sharyn feels that since the statue of limitations has not run out, he should have to pay. If she had evidence, she might have won. She might have been within her right to bring the case, but she still has to prove it. She should not have waited so long to pursue this case. In the hallway, it is clear she does not understand why she lost. Mike is satisfied with the outcome. He knows he did the right thing and is suspicious of the three year wait. It is so important to take care of a situation in a timely manner. What do you think of the outcome of this case?

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

Adventure is worthwhile in itself.

-Amelia Earhart