Going Airborne | The People's Court 

Somebody is listening to our cry !!! 😮 cause I am impressed and entertained!! 😂

Strongly agree

1000000000% agree!!!

Exactly !!

End of story. No case. ​@@sheltiemomstefanie2564

I mean, technically having no insurance doesn’t mean you’re not capable of driving specially if you have a valid driver license

@adventuresconjuan As long as the vehicle your driving has insurance, nothing technical about it.

Most unoriginal comment..thanks granny

If they didn't, karma will get that person.

No more “new” episodes to upload. Soo happy they are uploading older ones.

Yasssss 🙏

Yes thank God

I mean, it can be useful but still be a scam. If you've never made a claim in a decade and while you're at a stoplight, a driven can slam into you through zero fault of your own and your rates will increase. My partner used to be an assistant at an insurance place and someone broke into my truck, told me to just pay outta pocket to have it fixed than go through insurance because they'd see my house as a dangerous area, increasing the likelihood of it happening again, and my rates would go up by $30-50/month for years; that whatever I'd save on the repair would be paid out 10-fold over the years. Sure enough, coworker had it happen, went through insurance and it increased their rates by $38/month.

@@Fribee83 🤦‍♂️ … you didn’t buy insurance for a decade term, you bought for the 6 months period. Now, the fact that you own a car for a decade and wanted to insurance the car is not a scam. You got what you paid for: an insured asset.

@@iamdenislara Cool, can you pooint out where I said I bought it for a decade term? When someone says "I've have house insurance since 1980", do you think they bought a 44-year term? Are you pretending to be this dense to be feign being right or is this your natural state?

@@Fribee83 yes honey, I am the dense one. 👍

@@iamdenislara At least you have the self-awareness to admit it. Now you can move forward and grow.

exactly

Or under the influence. Whatever the case, I hope Karma finds them.

And the defendant needs to go sue the driver who caused the accident, not the plaintiff

​@@jlf7362Wow. They both Sue that other person. Because if it wasn't for the other person to hit the defendant and the plaintiff whenever I got her car in an accident so they were doubling him in a Sue. Then it would bring their case stronger. Because technically, she is like an eyewitness in a way of her car getting clipped. I'm flying up and then hitting her which damage her car

SHE'S NO DAMN VICTIM SHE SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THE RD IN THE 1ST PLACE

Things that make you go hmmm🤔

Did she say she didn’t get a ticket? If she did, I missed it.

@@hadley407 in a serious accident like this, where lives could have been lost, I could see a police officer turning a blind eye, but she still should have had to pay the Plaintiffs. They were on the road legally and were minding their business!

@@Jahmai203I agree!

neither side got judgments, but i am curious...if the defendant had insurance, would her insurance company have even paid the plaintiff since she wasn't at fault? defendant is definitely stupid for trying to counter-sue, though.

We have a couple older vehicles (for the kids) that we have only liability but that’s because we are able to absorb the cost of the vehicle if the worst happens. It’s worth it to us to save money on insurance that way. But if you can’t afford to absorb the cost you must have full coverage.

​@@oldageisdumb you pegged it!!! Hit the nail on the head! ❤

@@oldageisdumb That's exactly me :) I have a 1998 vehicle I paid $1500 for about 7 yrs ago, and I've only ever had liability on it. Recently bought a newer car that would cost a lot more money to fix or replace (I wouldn't be able to afford it, like you said), so this one has full coverage.

​@@oldageisdumbALWAYS HAVE FULL COVERAGE

@@coveredcovered20 Why? If the car isn’t worth a lot, why is it necessary?

She was driving illegally with no insurance, she is at fault.

⁠@@MrAllan9 that’s not how that works. She would be liable criminally, a traffic ticket, but not liable for the accident if she is in fact not at fault. Insurance is civil. Traffic laws like having insurance are criminal. Wish more people understood it all but I honestly didn’t either until I worked for auto insurance for a decade.

But shouldn’t defendant have to chase the third guy rather than the plaintiff?

Yea but it would not be fair if the person didn't cause the accident because in this case the Plaintiff even say that defendant got hit by someone

​@@angelicachanel2774 There would be no accident if your car wasn't on the road. It shouldn't be if it isn't insured.

Christai, which city do u live?

Absolutely not true. At fault does not means at fault for the accident it’s self, which she was not. Neither at fault nor not at fault states (which are only in regards to medical and injury claims) can pursue a not at fault party like the defendant for a criminal charge like not having insurance that’s between the criminal courts to cite her but nothing to do with insurance company automatically having to pay out for an accident she was not responsible for.

Read your policies people

​@@AshleyReeves-kg3fp😂😂😅

In the case of cars hitting each other from behind, that's because fault can be laid at the person for following to close or not having enough space for the car in front of them. She wasn't near the plaintiff, and this was not caused by her initially, at all, regardless of insurance. Sure, her not having insurance should have garnered her a ticket, but to be civilly liable for an accident you did not cause, I'm not so sure.

Sometimes you are robbing Peter to pay Paul. Kinda hard

@@sheltiemomstefanie2564what Peter do to you?

@@sheltiemomstefanie2564 If after robbing Peter you don't have enough left over to pay Paul, get your car off the road. Sure thing, life can be hard, but I shouldn't have to eat it because you broke the law.

@@runningawayvagabond5876 hey I’m talking about the auto pay Lol. I don’t put my insurance on autopay. Some people don’t have it like that.

@@Grovel007 you don’t know I ain’t telling you. 😜

I believe you can choose to sue people jointly or severally only if both of the offending parties were actually at fault. Which, in this case the defendant was not at fault. So that does not apply.

@@SarahParker-bo9uz she is at fault. Her car hit his.

​@@KrisLim-kz6zhhis car hit her

​@@KrisLim-kz6zhSo you're at a red light stopped behind another car and someone hit you causing you to hit the vehicle in front of you. You hit the car in front of you but how are you at fault?????

@@KrisLim-kz6zhif someone pushed you and you stumble into another person you are not at all responsible for the injuries caused by your assailant. You’re both victims of that initial push. That person alone is responsible. This woman had nothing to do with it unless you can prove she’s lying about being hit.

@amandabrown6565 Judge Milian applied the law in the respective state where the accident took place. The plaintiff would need to go after whomever caused the defendant's car to go flying into hers. This WASN'T a rear-end crash or any type of accident where the defendant "caused it" by not having insurance. 🙄 People in these comments really need to pay attention to what the judge says.

Even if she had insurance her insurance company would have denied the plaintiff's claim for the very same reason the judge denied her claim lol

There are punishments for driving without insurance, your idea wouldn't be realistic

Your last statement is dumb because it would of still happened insurance or not.

Then you should not drive, the first car that hit her cause the train reaction. So they have to find that driver

That's what I always thought🤔

Sure but now look at them, hurting for that choice. This could've easily had been an accident they caused and they couldn't the choice they made. She's simply letting them know that ALL choices have consequences and a freak accident happened, and this was their consequence.

Actually, if you have a leased vehicle, you HAVE to have full coverage.

You can sue but you wouldn’t win lol.

You can sue anybody for any reason at anytime... doesn't mean you'll win.

@CorsicaLily As another person on these comments said, "Even if the defendant had insurance her insurance company would have denied the plaintiff's claim for the very same reason the judge denied her claim". Think before you call something a "strange verdict" your countries ways are irrelevant to these cases as they are based on USA laws. 🙂

@686JM so I can't have an opinion because? You say so? It is a strange verdict to me because the plaintiff got her car destroyed, and nobody paid for it. I was stating that here, the laws protect the victims in these cases. It was just sharing an info. For you to take the time to write a reply only to tell me that I should refrain on sharing an opinion is ridiculous and moronic.

Yup.

Good for you

🍪🏆

​@@jshaianne26😂

IT'S NOT MISPLACED WHEN YOU DON'T HAVE INSURANCE IN A ACCIDENT IT'S AUTOMATICALLY YOUR FAULT SHOULDN'T HAVE BEEN ON THE RD

The plaintiff did have insurance(just not collision, the defendant’s insurance had lapse

​@Ididnotmake1 no. Plaintiff had no insurance, defendant had liability only.

@@KEBinAZ No no no. On a controversial people's court case like this when people (myself included) feel Judge Milian got this judgement entirely incorrect, do not get the facts wrong. Plaintiff (woman on the left side of the screen), had insurance/liability insurance. Defendant (woman on the right), had no valid/active insurance. Rewatch the video if you don't believe me.

If you want to go the legal route she did do something wrong. She was on the road uninsured. If you have no insurance you aren't supposed to be out on the road. So if she would have been home and not on the road the accident might have never happened.

I don’t think so. The ins wont pay more then they believe they are responsible for and even then they would low ball it. They would pay for the defendants car had she been insured but would deny fault and not pay out the plaintiff. Ive seen that before.

I know this to be true, I thought Judge Milan would have captured that …..GREAT comment

But that's not how the law works... look it up. Just because you want somethinf a certain way didn't make it fact.

@@bradconrad936 your comment makes no sense