People's Court Blog - 10 16 2012 - Tuesday

A 4 Year Old Driver

Linda is suing Andrew for $2554.89. This is for injuries she received as a result of Andrew's 4 year old driving into her with a motorized scooter. Yes, 4 years old! and Andrew is a proud father to say she has been riding since she was 3! Not only that, she is obviously so experienced she does not need adult supervision. Andrew seems fine with the fact his 6 year old was outside with the 4 year old. Linda describes the incident and it is very believable that a 4 year old lost control of a motorized scooter and injured her. Andrew says that his daughter told him that Linda walked out in front of her. Who would you believe? Linda shows the pictures of her injury and also show the scar on her ankle. Andrew does not seem to be concerned at all by Linda's injuries. He did not even check on her after the incident. After all, his kids did come home and tell him the neighbor had been injured. How does he rationalize letting his kids play outside unsupervised and on such dangerous vehicles for kids their age? Well, that is a very good question. We will not get the answer in this forum. The Judge finds in favor of Linda and tells Andrew that he needs to be a better parent. A 4 year old should not be playing unsupervised and should not be driving a motorized scooter! What do you think?

A Yankee Weekend

Andrew and Denis are suing Paul for $3109.40. Paul is counterclaiming for $5000.00, Andrew, Denis and 2 other friends traveled from Boston to New York City to spend the weekend. They wanted to see a Yankee game. They purchased tickets outside the stadium from a scalper for $50.00 each. They were stopped in the line and told the tickets were not valid. They were not counterfeit tickets. Andrew was able to find out where the tickets originated. Paul has a business in Connecticut and sends unsold tickets to the city to be sold. He claims he did not know these tickets had been sold online the Thursday before the game. Andrew contacted Paul and was offered the $200.00 he spent on the tickets. He asked for $600.00 and Paul turned him down. Andrew then called the Yankees to find out if this has happened before. Paul feels this was slander and could hurt his business and that is why he is counterclaiming. Why are they suing Paul for so much money? Well, they want Paul to pay for their entire weekend expenses. This is outrageous! I think they are lucky to have found Paul to begin with and to have the opportunity to get back the $200.00. When you buy tickets on the street, you are really taking a chance. This is exactly the ruling. The Judge finds in their favor for the $200.00. Paul does not recover anything on his counterclaim. He has not lost anything because of the phone call to the Yankees. This should be a wake-up call to Paul to change his business practices. Andrew and Denis should not have expected to get a bonanza of a free weekend in the city because they bought tickets on the street! What do you think?

A Cuban Gold Necklace

Jimmy is suing a pawnbroker for $2400.00. He says this is the value of a gold Cuban necklace the pawnbroker sold. When Jimmy pawned his gold Cuban necklace he received $450.00. He failed to pick it up within the allotted time and to pay the interest payments. The store tried to notify him but did not have the correct address. There is so much that went wrong here on Jimmy's part. He should have made sure he went back to the pawnbroker within the proper amount of time. He should have made sure they had his current address. Why would any of this be the store's responsibility? The store even waited longer than the allotted 4 months to sell the necklace. I feel bad for Jimmy because this necklace seems to mean so much to him, but he really dropped the ball.  Jimmy loses his case because he cannot show that the store did anything wrong. And what was the money for? Jimmy went to Atlantic City! Really! what a shame! Hopefully in the future, Jimmy will make sure information on an application is correct and he pays attention to the calender! What do you think?

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

Stay Updated - Subscribe!

The time you enjoy wasting is not wasted time.

~Bertrand Russell

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