ironically , the tape proves the defendant DID NOT HIT the other car . the tape only shows the defendant trying to park in a certain way but clearly shows that no contact was made between his vehicle and the other vehicle . i would appeal the decision based on what the tape actually shows .
@@marleonetti7 You are 100% wrong as it is impossible to conclusively say he didn't hit the plaintiff's car based on the video at 16:07 - the defendant's car is blocking the plaintiff's car and there may be contact at this point. This is a civil case which does not require conclusive proof, but rather that it is more likely than not (i.e. 51% likely) the defendant hit the car. There was video evidence that showed the defendant's car possibly touching the other car, the damage on both cars matched consistent with the video and the defendant was unable to provide an explanation that made sense (and once he lied about having pulled in head first that took away his credibility as a witness). You could appeal all you want but it would not make a difference as the appellate court would accept the Judge's findings based on this evidence.
@@neutralcommenter7800 but the other car would have MOVED if it was touched by the other vehicle and the video clearly shows NO movement from the parked vehicle so i would say that is PROOF that the defendant is not at fault for damages . there is no way those damages on the plaintiff's car could have been caused and his car not move enough to see on a video . sometimes this judge is not very observant and lacks common sense. i think she ruled against the defendant because she was annoyed by the way he explained how he was parking but that alone is not enough even in small claims , the video says it all , no movement no collision , simple .
The only reason he ended up parking head-first in the garage was to hide the damage that his car sustained when he hit the Plaintiff's car. Had he never hit the other car he would have continued manuevering until he was able to back it in.
This is why it should be mandatory for folks to retake their Drivers License after a certain age. Everything he did while trying to park was worrisome 😩🤦🏾♀️
the video clearly showed that the two vehicles did not touch each other , because the plaintiff's car would have moved a little if it was bumped and the video would have showed that .
Defendant -- "There is no damage to my car. That dent and scratch on my car came like that from the factory. I special ordered it with a dent and scratch already because I didn't want to feel bad being the first person to damage my car."
OH, I did not know that you were visiting your friend of 70 years. Obviously you could not have hit his car because no one who is visiting their friend of 70 years hits another car. Thanks for providing that very relevant evidence.
I only watch those while doing chores or busy work. They're not as interesting, but you can afford to be distracted while watching. Otherwise, you're right! You get the best interactions and reactions when they're in person. And the comments are icing on the cake!😂
This case is intriguing. I found myself in alignment with Judge Marilyn as she adeptly questioned the plaintiff's supposed expertise in assessing damage. Initially, the defendant vehemently denied any involvement in damaging the plaintiff's car, offering responses like 'No damage' when evidence suggested otherwise. It seemed he was attempting to imply that any damage predated the incident. However, his stance shifted when the judge probed further during cross-examination. Despite the defendant's attempts to deflect, the inconsistencies in his testimony became apparent. While the video evidence provided some insight, its brevity made it difficult to ascertain the full extent of the situation. Judge Marilyn's emphasis on the preponderance of evidence, what is most likely, guided her decision-making. As the defendant's testimony unraveled under scrutiny, it became clear that his initial denials were at odds with the facts, ultimately leading to a ruling in favor of the plaintiff.
He said, " Heart is crying"😂 The way he says he HAS to back in, sounds like he's trying to justify the accident. Accidents happen.....own up, take car of it, n move on
I passed out while RU-vid was playing these, and this one woke me up right in the middle, all because this guy couldn't figure out how to park his car 😂
@@oldageisdumb My wife and I have owned a 2018 Chrysler Pacifica for 6 years and it's been a great van with very good quality - Judge Milian's "choice" to own one likely has been as positive as ours.
@@oldageisdumb "Experts" are not "owners" - And accusing people of not making good choices by purchasing things that you don't agree with is silly, especially a millionaire TV personality who can afford what she wants - Apparently judge Milian liked her Pacifica as do my wife and I, it has not been unreliable or poor quality. Try not to repeat nonsense that you heard or read without any personal experience.
Defendant: "No, yeah, no. I did not do it, but I did"😮. A "44 point turn"😂---that's go one foot, back up, go another foot, back up, and on and on. He shouldn't be driving, he can't park for sh1t.
lololol the defendant knew he did it the entire time and she let him weave his web of lies until he couldn’t anymore but shocking plot twist he still tried!!! this is why when people reach a certain age they should have to retake their drivers test.
The tape showed mostly the 2nd lie about parking in one move, immediately nose forward. The lie about the non-existing damage was already pinched. Once a lie means always lies... its that simple... and in court a no go!
* blink * * blink * 👀 JM: " *i* drive a Pacifica! they aren't that high." i'm trying to picture JM drivin around miami and hialeah in a frickin minivan💀🤯
I understand what he is trying to explain. He's not backing up to park. He parks head first, but has to back out the same direction because of the pillar. Then he does this turn around thing to leave head first instead of backing all the way out to leave.
