Reginald is positive Augustine caused the accident, but Judge Judy isn’t so sure. #JudgeJudy The Original! There’s only ONE Judge Judy. Visit our website for where to watch, weekdays. Subscribe to Judge Judy on RU-vid: / @judgejudy
Haha I don’t feel bad . I’m glad she fucking mocked his mouth . 😂 I’m still laughing my fat ass off at him . He deserved it . They all do . I absolutely LOVE it when Judge Judy tells everybody off . 💯
2:51 Close your mouth and just say 'yes or no.' If JJ didn't give him instruction, I'm convinced he would still be standing in the darkened court room with his mouth open.
@@Cool_Ace That’s why we love her. We have to edit ourselves and can’t just look someone in the eye saying, _Are you stupid? Are you an idiot? Did you think you were coming to the beach?_ 😂😂😂😂
both of their testimonies were dumb, and they probably went based on the police report because neither insurance company pays unless they have to. the police report probably showed the defendant was not at fault, and the old guy couldn't articulate it.
@@BoopSnoot Wow. You didn’t pay much attention. There was *no* police report, because there were no police. No reason was given why. The older man did everything he could to avoid an even worse accident. He was driving defensively and literally watching and anticipating the defendant’s moves. Whereas the defendant didn’t even know what direction the plaintiff was coming from. 98% of the time someone hits another car from behind, it’s their fault!!! JJ was absolutely correct in her decision.
@@CarolineWolterHall Right, what would insurance adjusters whose sole job is to investigate and rule on this, which was not ONE but TWO know better? You're about as smart as the defendant.
And another adult bully. Then so many say “Why are our children so horrible to each other”….. because they learn to talk about and bully others for what they look like and dress like!
@@Naturefan354 Well... He didn't have collision, the only thing in question was whether D's insurance company would accept fault pay for P's car, or whether P's insurance would. They had nothing to lose by lying and saying it was P's fault lol
I think the defendant did nothing wrong. Defendant was going straight and plaintiff was taking a left, so he should have yielded to on coming traffic. Yes the defendant hit him, but he wasn’t at fault
The defendant's story sounds plausible to me. But the fact that he had no idea where the plaintiff's car came from suggests to me he wasn't paying attention.
Not really. It means he just heard the other dude say it was different from what he said happened. He is trying to process the explanation he just heard since it wasn't expected to be different.
Adding clarification to my comment. I agree defense sounded plausible. My comment was mainly in response to the second part, of him being unsure...this is an explanation of why he may have responded in the way he did.
What I don't understand is, how did the insurance company decide that the plaintiff was at fault? It seemed pretty clear to JJ that the defendant hit him!
@@marinam.2293 The board is the defendant's version where he said the plaintiff ran the red light from the other street. The insurance company probably used it as an excuse.
@@marinam.2293 It's weird. I worked as a insurance rep a few years ago. Based on the damage alone, the defendant would automatically be placed at fault unless special circumstances where proven. I cannot phantom how some rep looked at the case and said "hmmmm.. you shouldn't be driving sideways" It's especially odd considering the plaintiffs insurance had to pay. Insurance companies usually work for you because they want the other party to pay, this insurance company paid without a critical thought
@@marinam.2293 I don’t think that’s what happened. Now I’m going to watch this again ~ lol. The *defendant’s* insurance company hounded his insurance saying the plaintiff was at fault. We know plaintiff’s insurance paid out. Plaintiff was clear it wasn’t about the money - the $250 deductible, but the principle of the fact the defendant was so at fault and caused the accident. He wanted a judge to side with him, so he could take that as evidence to his company. Anyone else - please weigh in??
He said the plaintiff stomped on the brakes and slid sideways and they clunked. Seems implausible to me but the plaintiff got me suspicious when he said he was hit with a big impact. If the plaintiff took the turn at speed (which he said he did), depending on tire and weather condition is very plausible that the plaintiff did, in fact, go sideways when he stomped on the brake (which also said he did) and hit the defendant. Impossible to tell, anyway, everybody got whole and we got a good laugh out of it. Win win. Added: Also when the plaintiff made his claim, his complaint was that the defendant did not notice him that he was going to go into the lane and the plaintiff was in fact forced to that kind of manoeuvre. I believe the defendant now, I will change my mind in a few seconds and then back again. I cannot be a judge.
I’m a former auto claims adjuster, I feel like we’re missing some pertinent info. It seems like the plaintiff turned left in front of the defendant, but we don’t know if plaintiff had a green arrow. Knowing which state the accident occurred in would be helpful too. There could very well have been comparative or contributory negligence applied.
And the defendant needs to be sane enough to assert that . . 🤣😂 . . The claimant indicated that he had the arrow , and the defendant didnot dispute it ( or rather was too confused to ) . 🤯🤯
@@l.r.mckenzie4832 I think she rushed the judgement because she didn't want to look at the defendant anymore. I can't blame her. The clown outfit, the heart thing on top of his head, the lip gloss....her facial expressions looked disgusted.
He's competent enough to quickly change his story saying the plaintiff was sliding sideways and hit him when originally he was saying the man was coming from a completely different direction. The insurance company was totally screwing the plaintiff over and the defendant thought he'd use that as a defense. Seriously, I haven't found a comment that brings it up, did no one see the red heart on top of his bald head? ♥️?
How can JJ say 100% the defendant hit the plaintiff just by the pictures? The defendants version also makes sense. If someone pulls out in front of you, the front of your car will hit theirs.
The plaintiff admitted he "floored" it around the corner, which to me supports the defendants statement that the plaintiff went sideways around the corner, the plaintiff probably floored it as he admitted then lost control and when sideways hitting the defendant. I would of thrown them both out.
