not to mention that first the child was 15 feet ahead of her, and later she didn't see the child until she'd hit her with the car. All the best to you!!
Like you got understand this people assess drivers can’t see everything at once and another thing. If Kay can’t fall school ground rules and they hit a car they should be responsible because let me put it like this. I was stupid enough not to follow school ground rules I hit a car and I was responsible, so what is the difference with this bc it’s a child like. Like a child to not dart across the road with moving vehicles in general, it’s common sense.
I do not agree with Judge Judy’s ruling. She did not understand the situation because of the cross guard even told her to stop and she refused. It should not be on the driver. The girl refuse to listen to instructions so she should deal with the consequences.
@@charlesgallagher8692 i suspect that they film the case and then edit it to fit the time slot. There's a law in the USA and Canda that states that NO parent is financially liable for a child's carelessness.......only for malicious acts. Judge Judy didn't have time to make that point. It may seem unfair, but that's the law of the land.....the plaintiff would have lost in every court in the land because it's not a malicious act. They passed the law because if they hadn't the courts wouldn't have had time to hear anything but kid damage cases. Cheers.
It was an unfair leap from an injury to death ... JJ should not have made it. But some wars are best not fought and the plaintiff should have just walked away
I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior. I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
Okay so what if the child broke her mirror but didn't get injured? Is it okay to sue then? In neither situation should it change the outcome. Plaintiff wasn't at fault. The girl got hurt based on her own actions, not the plaintiff's. And it's not fair to ask these situations since that's not the case.
My jaw just dropped when she said "I don't know, I'm not going to answer that question." If it were the other way around and the little girls mother had hit one of those little boys, she would be suing the little girls mother for everything under the sun 🙄
Omg the little girl surprised me at the end. She seemed so sweet and reserved in court and the moment she’s interviewing she sounds like a sassy teen 🤣
Especially at a school. I’m always extra cautious anywhere that you can expect children to be because they’re tiny and they’re quick and they’re still learning the things adults already know.
Sadly, it could happen simultaneously as you pull off a kid t-bone you. Being careful won't save you from the unexpected unless you parked all day until all kids are gone.
I mean, if you've ever taken a Driver's education course ... they literally teach you to watch for children and pedestrians in general, as you can't predict what someone else will do ... I'm always super cautious in areas I know children are at play. This woman just wants money for something she IS at fault for. You can't control what a 9 year old child will do. You can tell them as much as you want and hope they listen, but at the end of the day, we as adults need to be more cautious and observant.
When the judge asked “ what if you killed her, will you be suing her mother?” And how she still try to justify that it’s a 9 years old fault and refuse to answer the question says a lot about the type of person she is
That's a ridiculous question to ask the woman because that didnt HAPPEN, playing "what if" games like that is unprofessional and stupid. I remember a state sent the widow of an accident death- her husband, a bill for the highway sign his car destroyed in the accident, tacky, but there was damage and a loss there.
The only reason to refuse that question is because she thinks it would be OK to sue for a mirror whether the child was injured or killed. What a monsterous woman.
When Judge Judy starts jumping up and down in her chair, and having to ask the same question to a witness, you know someone is about to learn a lesson the hard way. Love it!
Kids run out from in between parked cars all the time. That's why as an adult, you must stay vigilant and expect the unexpected. The plaintiff is too stubborn and lacks empathy to be reasonable. With her attitude, I'm surprised she hasn't been involved in other child related accidents at the school. She wasn't looking at all while her car was moving. She's, clearly, a narcissist and will never accept the fact she did anything wrong.
What an arrogant Judge. Children make mistakes and this one did. It's not the drivers fault. It's the child. That's what's so going wrong with this world. Children are not being held accountable and so they get entitled and have no manners.
@@russellmaynard5127Wrong. Crossing guard and driver said they saw her 15 then 30 feet away. If she stopped the car when she saw the child, like an adult, the child wouldn't have had anything to run into. The plaintiff told on herself.
"next time she's going to cross at the green, and not in-between". 😂😂. That line was from old public service announcement commericals reminding kids how to cross. Great reminder.
And I think its a major reason as to why JJ didnt rule in her favor, she simply didnt believe her. I think if she had a dashcam that proved how slow she was going and how she really didnt have time to react, the judgement would have been different
@@ashley1570 Even if she didn't have time to react (which certainly happens sometimes), if she were driving at a slow enough speed we can be pretty sure that her mirror would have fared a lot better than it did.
Yes I'm sure from the way the lady spoke, she repeated herself way too many times and her movements and facial expressions didn't match what she was saying, I'm certain she was driving too fast and hit the girl with the front corner of her car and the force threw the girl down the side of the car onto the mirror. Also the woman refusing to answer the hypothetical question of would she have sued if the girl had died is her thinking yes but knowing she'd look bad if she admitted it, which is horrendous. The judge is right you should expect children in a school zone and children don't listen because they are children, every parent knows that and I doubt her boys are perfect either.
I think the judge was more annoyed with the plaintiff bringing this to court rather than focusing on whether or not she even had a case. I don’t blame her. I was annoyed too. I would have been so startled by her getting hurt that I would have been checking on her daily rather than worrying about a darn mirror. Lady, go to the parts yard and get a new mirror and call it a day.
Exactly Because if it was her child she wouldn’t want the mother to sue for a stupid part of the car that could be fix but people life you couldn’t bring back I thank god the little girl is ok 🙏
another case of a young kid stealing someone's car and wrecking it and they died. car owner sued the mother of the kid who stole the car. Yeah, lot of people thought "how could you do that" Well, they didn't ask for their car to be stolen either by their kid.
When the plaintiff refused to even entertain the judge’s hypothetical and answer it I think we all knew what her answer was. She still would have sued. *That’s* why she refused to answer. She knew it would make her look even worse. If she would NOT have sued if, in the *exact* same circumstances, the child had died then she’d have no reason *NOT* to say that. Well other than it’s not good for her case, but by that point it was obvious she wasn’t going to win her case. Maybe not to HER but to everyone else.
@@dragameswas that a case on Judge Judy out of curiosity? That particular situation imo is rather different than this one. While I’m not sure how young the kid was, I’d imagine they were older than the girl in this case who got hurt. So probably old enough to know better than to steal a car. Not only that but in the case you mentioned the kid went out of their way to steal a car and go joy riding. Here you have a young girl crossing the road, maybe doing so carelessly, but still going about her day. And doing so in a setting where drivers in the area have to be especially vigilant to their surroundings. In the situation you mentioned I can’t say that I would have sued the kid’s parents, but I don’t necessarily fault them for doing so either. I don’t know the details but for all I know that was the families *only* means of transportation. Perhaps it was an older vehicle that only had PLPD (liability) and/or whatever insurance they may have gotten wouldn’t have been nearly enough to replace the car.
@@ericaschaidt8588 It was not a Judge Judy case. though I can give you cases of a lot of children as young as this girl stealing cars and in one case a 10 year old and 11 year old stabbing a woman to death in a Hyvee Parking lot and then stealing her car to go on a joy ride (I remember because this one happened at the Hy vee I used to go to) The reason I bring this up is because they're saying that they couldn't think to sue the parents after having their kid suffer such a grave injury. It doesn't matter, what matters is fault and in this case the arbitration could easily be voided because of how JJ handled it (unless there's stuff edited out) because there is nothing there that people are trying to claim that the driver was driving recklessly and instead a very important piece of information that isn't in the episode discussed... The hill. Look at the place the kid crossed, she went on a hill that doesn't even seem to have a sidewalk so she ran down a hill right into a car, where the hill could also increase her speed and carelessness running into the side of a car. Granted, in this case, you have a few things to consider. 1) her parents for having the girl who somehow didn't know better even at that age or 2) the school for not making sure the kids were crossing where they should be as at this time the kids were under the watch of the school. The school would have been a much better entity to go after here. Especially because of the nature of that hill she ran down. regardless of anything else, when your kid is under your watch, you are responsible for whatever that kid does. Even paying for it. Accidents are accidents, but that doesn't mean they don't do damage for a careless accident.
Yes I am totally agreeing with you. You have to watch children because yeah they can be playing but it's your job and responsibilities to watch them because some of them does run out just as I was picking up my grandson one day one of the kids just jot it out in front of me but luckily I was barely moving and I hit the brakes so quick I scared me to wear it when I got home I had to lay down and get my nerves back together, along with a nice stiff drink and I went to bed
I’ve seen the same at crowded conventions and airports. One instance of mom looking away for a split second and a child could run off or be abducted. Leashes are essential.
Parents should especially have their kids on leashes and zoos. The parents that are not watching their kids or holding on to the kids hands around gorilla and African dog cages and then blame it on the zoo need to be held responsible. And I think leashes are a wonderful idea.
My friends and I were talking about how we used to be so judgy and say how awful of parents who use those. Then my 4 year cousin was almost ran up under the wheels of a Mardi Gras float. He was standing next to us then in a second darted out into the street. I had to snack him back just in time. Then I’m like where can I get one of those kid leashes? Then when he was a little older like 9 we thought ok we can trust him. No. We look up and he’s following a float down the street. I had to run to go get him.
The kid was in the wrong, but as a parent myself, I wouldn’t take the parent to court over the mirror. Like JJ said, I’ll be relieved that he wasn’t worst than that . Another thing, if you’re use to pick up kids u know well not to expect all of them to cross where they should 😂 never ever my friend , they’ll be running from all over
I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit thr girl. Its ewuivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on soemthign she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior. I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
Bc she knows logically shes still supposed to sue her, suing implies it was the other persons fault, but then judge puts her in the spot by asking an emotional question
To be fair, I agree with her.. it's not the same thing. I mean, I wouldn't sue a kid over a mirror, but still. Kid being alive and kid being dead sparks different emotions.
Oh my God, by refusing to answer, she basically admitted she would have sued a dead girl’s mom for her mirror, but just didn’t have the guts to say it. She might have done everything right, I did feel for her, but suing for that broken mirror is insane. She should have been thanking God every morning that the little girl didn’t die. Moral of the story: let your kids ride home on the bus!
@@carolr7823 I live near a school and I see mothers driving like Fangio everyday. but after the crossing guard's statement, It sounds like the girl darted out into traffic. I think JJ was unfair how she dismissed his statement. Most crossing guards are super protective of the kids, and they take their job seriously. If the crossing guard says thats what he saw, I dont think hes lying. I've seen many kids dart across the road when they see their car, or they get off a bus and run across the road. That said, suing for a few hundred bucks is crazy.
It is always a nightmare dropping off and picking up my kids from school. Some parents drive like lunatics through school parking lots, you wouldn’t believe it!
@@mariamaaminu9326 she had to be going at some speed to break her clavicle. I practically just let my car roll around kids, I wouldn't be able to live with myself otherwise lol, I certainly wouldn't sue them.
@Mariama Aminu She didn't drive crazy, but she keeps saying she didn't anticipate the girl coming out from where she did. But she's at at school...kids do stupid things and dart out of everywhere without thinking, so as an adult you ALWAYS have to be on guard. That was JJ's point, but all this lady hears is she's being accused of flooring it and purposely hitting the girl. It's even worse with middle schoolers. The few times I have to pick up my son is a nightmare because these kids just dart out across the street on whether they are running, biking, skateboarding, or got thier hands on one of those scooters you pay to use. I drive SUPER slow because I'm so afraid of hitting on of the little maniacs. Some of these other parents I see seem to drive like there will never be a kid that runs out in front of them just because there isn't a crosswalk there.
If this woman bothered to read the DMV handbook she would know that she herself is responsible. I think she should be embarrased for even bringing this case to court.
Sadly, it could happen simultaneously as you pull off a kid t-bone you. Being careful won't save you from the unexpected unless you parked all day until all kids are gone. Happened to me once I looked right (clear), looked left (clear), BAM! to my right side.
Even if she was at a complete stop the child would have still hit the side of her car. it wasn't the car that hit the kid, it was the kid that hit the car.
There's a deer crossing sign, deer everywhere, 500 deer exiting the forest towards the road specifically, deer are crossing down the way, there's a deer crossing guard, and as the parent of two bambies you already know they can run carelessly into the road.
It's not like that at all. A deer has no awareness whatsoever on what roads and traffic are. An 8 year old does. An 8 year old is perfectly capable of knowing not to run into traffic.
@@Firegloincorrect. If a child had full sense, they'd be tried like adults. And additionally, school zones wouldn't require people to drive slowly and most importantly: 'With caution.'
@@Aizen2468 many children have been tried as adults. Like I said an 8 year old is perfectly capable of knowing not to run into traffic. I'm not sure what having basic common sense in regards to road safety has to do with being tried as a child or adult in a courtroom?
Agree. Truly the broken clavicle its an eeky subject, kind of don't go with the facts. I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior.
@@323azteca honestly if I were the defendant I would’ve countersued as well. Only because I was getting sued for a mirror after having to pay way too much in the American healthcare scene. The defendant could have sued earlier too, but didn’t. They filed a counterclaim when having this case shoved their way.
Nah. SIMPLY because if you’re driving through a school area when there’s kids everywhere you have to look like a hawk and not ASSUME there won’t be a kid somewhere you think they won’t be. Simply.
@@the_maverik1299okay just pay for it her parents weren’t negligent in this matter she is obviously jealous of that little girl mother and see’s money on her
Not likely because of a deductible. A hit and runs driver knocked my mirror off. I got another from the junkyard for $35 and my friend put it on for me. No way I was making an insurance claim.
Her insurance would have said it was her fault because there has to be a police report and she probably didn't want her premiums to go up. It is her fault and she doesn't want to believe it is her fault
@@kondrasellers2740 Huh?! Absolutely wrong! Yes, the girl's parents weren't negligent but that doesn't absolved them of responsibility. If your kid throws a ball and it smashes someone's windscreen, then the parents are responsible for paying for the damage caused. It's the same here... no one, defendant included, disputes that the child ran into the car and tried to cross the road where she should not have. After dealing the with expenses concerning the girl getting well, the parents should have offered to pay/reimburse the plaintiff for the damage... that's the responsible and ethical thing to do.
@@bobsibert1968 I'm not saying your wrong that the child's mother should pay for it. I agree. All I'm saying is that since the child was hurt and no major damage done then why add insult to injury so to speak. I just don't think it's something I could do. The child getting hurt taught her the lesson. Besides, why would I pay to go to court for a mirror? Seems trivial to me
@@bobsibert1968 the owner of the car 🤣🤣 I get what where people who share the same opinion as you are coming from but if a judge doesn’t order the person to pay for the mirror then what can you do?
I'm a teacher, and I wonder what the school was doing to allow a kid to run out in the street where there was no cross walk. We are ridiculously cautious with our kids after school and all of the traffic.
I almost got hit by a car trying to get a quarter in the street when I was in elementary school, I was in 3rd grade, one of the teachers (she was one of the third grade teachers, idk if she was helping with crosswalk duty or just happened to be there) quickly grabbed me and pulled me out of the road, I noticed then there was a car driving very slow right next where my head was. She was freaking out, she told me not to do that again. She was a very nice teacher
Judge Judy did the right thing. She dragged it out just enough for the plaintiff to expose herself for the ginormous asshole that she is. I can assure you people who know this woman fucking hate her.
UUhm, if a kid hit my car and was hurt, I would be relieved it is only my mirror broken and not the child hurt more.....I could never take the child to court for a broken mirror.
Took the mom to court not the child. Yeah the mom was relieved that the kid wasn't killed for hurt more but she has a family to support and does not have the money to buy a new car mirror and if you look at the picture it's alot more damage then just a mirror. Not everyone wealthy.
@@formanga8871 You mean parents? Or is it not everyone's job to keep the little ones safe. Pedestrians have right of way. Drivers in school zones need to creep. People need to accept blame for things that are their fault. You drive a car, you take the responsibility.
@@SylvanApe Not really, If a child come and clashes themselves on my car it's their fault, As car was following the rules. It's the responsibility of an adult who is supposed to monitor them.
@@formanga8871 "If a child come and clashes themselves on my car it's their fault" Only if your car is, and has been for a reasonable interval, stationary. They are children and have little 'responsibility' - which was your point I believe. Also, the law disagrees with you.
@@SylvanApe Depending on which law? Car was moving on the speed it was supposed to be hence why the judge clearly said she was not at fault here. Also it's the responsibility of an adult that was monitoring the children to make sure they not do what that girl did, The driver had a loss without their fault hence the case here.
This case is my worst nightmare. Whenever I drive in school zones or parking lots I’m always afraid a kid will jolt out in front of my car. Kids will be kids and unfortunately the nature of childhood doesn’t include much forward thinking most times. I truly feel for the little girl and the driver. Lose lose all around.
Exactly. I don’t think the plaintiff was intentionally speeding but people don’t understand how fast 20-25 mph really is and how easy it is to go faster than that. My neighborhood has so many children I get paranoid just hoping they don’t dart out into the street because they can come from anywhere.
@@diamondwhite3908 it wasn't proven she was speeding. Heck, the girl can run into a motionless car and still break her clavicle depending on how she lands. Cos it's a fragile bone and is not meant to have pressure put on it
@@lizxu322 I didn’t say she was speeding. I just said that the 20-25 mph she may have thought she was going is an easy speed to go over. It makes no sense that at any speed she wasn’t anticipating that a child or a person may not walk out from a place where they normally wouldn’t cross. Yes, the car rider line is a pain and you just want to get out of the parking lot. But a little caution goes a long way. People cross the street at the wrong place in grocery store parking lots so why wouldn’t it happen at a school?
@@lizxu322 Not with that much damage caused to the car. There are formulas we can use to figure out how fast a car was going based on how much damage was done. If you're a stationary object and a car is coming at you, the damage done is catastrophic. If a car is moving slowly and the object is stationary, you usually only have dents. That's why when a deer is in the highway, it can often kill drivers because the deer freezes up and becomes a stationary object. This is also why people don't often die from collisions in New York City. Cars go very slow during the gridlock traffic and people often only have mild bruises and cars only have very minor dents. If you're going low speed and the car coming at you is going low speed, there's usually little to no damage for both parties. Unless you have an underlying condition but you're not one of those weird sick people like I am, so I'm just here to set you straight on how the real world works for the rest of you! So if I put in what she's suggesting... then this child has to be running like Usain Bolt to receive those types of injuries AND damage the car. Besides... This is untrue! Due to children's bones not having developed, they're flexible. They usually don't get many breaks in comparison to adults. Breaking your arm as a child is relatively rare unless you play high contact sports, do cheerleading, or try to jump off a very high ledge. Which we don't have many of those these days due to a great deal of cul de sacs being built and those uneven areas being pounded into the ground. I did know a kid who broke his arm around this age. He got it climbing an eight foot tree. Not that many of us got eight foot trees these days. She was going faster than she said she was (this child is not an Olympic runner but if she is then get her a trainer NOW) and witness testimony is often shoddy. When you see kids being dumb every day, one being half dumb instead of all dumb is not gonna register.
I work at an elementary school. Kids go and come out where they aren’t supposed to all the time. They make mistakes, they are children for goodness sakes! I for one wouldn’t even think about the mirror, I would be more concerned about the well-being of the child. A mirror can be replaced, a child cannot.
This level of inhumanity is astounding. I have kids, I have had kids hit my car with their Bike, their Skate Board, on Roller Skates, while waiting to pick up my Boys from School, from Footy Training, from a 5ht Class School Dance and NEVER worry about my car but always about their wellbeing. I'd imagine if the show was on the other foot, she'd go off and accuse me of hitting her child.
Morally I get where the judge and everyone is coming from. But from a legal standpoint the mom of the little girl should pay. Since it was her daughter’s fault. And I say this because living near elementary schools I know how incredibly slow the cars drive. So no way the woman could have even moved her car to avoid the girl from running into her car. The whole situation sucks all around. But that’s why they took it to court. For a legal stance not a moral one. And I totally agree that from a moral it looks bad. All the hypothetical scenarios shouldn’t matter. Because legally they didn’t happen.
literally people in the comments section claiming this woman won't be able to feed her two sons because the mirror is broken 🙄. Her and the crossing guard our secret trying to Sue this woman. Also the kid playing with the five at the end was obviously they could playing with his bribe money. Someone crashed into my mirror while I was in the Target parking lot and I just duct taped it.
That plaintiff thought it a valid point that the child ran into the side of her car causing damage. Very different than if the child had run in front of the car, and then the car hit the child. On a similar note, what if the plaintiff had been stopped in traffic, and the child ran into her car and caused damage? Would you feel the same way? When cars hit cars like this it's usually called a T-bone. I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic, or that the plaintiff is. I'm just trying to explain the plaintiff's perspective.
@@birussa brat? All kids run when they’re not supposed too. Doesnt make them brats. You on the other hand, are an adult and you’re a joke. Talking badly about a little kid.
I’m would have harshly dismissed her case the moment the plaintiff kept talking over me and said she’s not going to answer that. Shows how careless & heartless she is. A car mirror can easily be replaced, not a child’s life.
I’m an Australian. I’m shocked at what Americans will sue over. This is ridiculous, audacious and insensitive. Maybe keep in touch with the girls mother and see if she could help chuck in for a new mirror, but a court case is gross. And I’m glad Judge Judy saw though it and worked out what type of person she really is. Kids get distracted and absent minded , I’m glad she’s ok and it wasn’t worse.
I can’t believe this lady brought on this lawsuit. It’s so shocking to me from start to finish. What really got me, is how she kept trying to argue her pointless point. Just 🤦♀️.
You're driving slowly down the street and a kid t-bones your car causing damage. You did nothing wrong. You're not going to try to get their parents to fix it? Really? Really?
There was an even worse older case where a little girl did die, and the plaintiff was still suing to have her car replaced. Judy was not happy that day.
@@TheEggplantThatAteChicago I mean it sucks but if it's not your fault the girl died and it took out your car (which may have been the only way for you to get to work and make money to support yourself), you deserve to get it fixed, right? Your life shouldn't be ruined because someone else lost their life on no fault of your own. Sometimes the universe is just mean and throws you into situations like this.
It's like these people don't watch judge Judy.. If I were to go to judge Judy I would practice and find out every what if Judy said this or that do I have a answer and if that's the case can I counter everything judy said... This lady did what I would of done but it just turned into a argument.... I would never go to judge Judy for that reason. Not worth it..
You don't know how easy it is for bones to broke, Just need an angle and one unexpected hit, Bones are only 10 times stronger than concrete when they get time to prepare of the impact.
I was thinking the same thing. Emy is small. She doesn't look like she can run very fast. Your clavicle is underneath your chin and head and it's almost impossible to break in a side collision like that. She would have to stick her chest out, pull her chin up, and go smack right into the mirror. The only way this would work is if the vehicle was moving and she hit it at an odd angle. If the vehicle was in motion then the driver is supposed to be checking all of their blind spots to make sure that doesn't happen. Also there's like a million signs at schools saying to be careful as there are children in the area. She ignored those signs and thus this happened.
The child ran into the side of a car. Even if the car has been stopped dead, the impact would have been the same. Speed/movement of the car had nothing to do with this...the child ran into the car. Think of a kid running full out runs into a glass door. The door isn't moving but the impact is enough to knock the kid back several feet and to the ground. Now add a rock to the window at the height of the clavicle. The kid is going to be injured. If the mirror hadn't been there the kid would have just bounced off the side of the car maybe denting the door, but probably not injured except for some bruising.
Suing for the mirror is petty but that little girl clearly was in the wrong and Judge Judy spun it to a “what if” which I think is wrong considering it wasn’t the lady’s fault to begin with. Teach your kids to pay attention!
she spun it around to teach these parents about teaching their kids how to learn to cross the street carefully. because yes it's real dumb to make the child pay for a mirror, but in a different situation. would the she sue the girls mother if she killed her?
disagree. animals, children, drunk, addicted... you cannot predict how they act on the streets. Two first two of the list are not implying an active fault.If there would be neglectance by the mom. DIfferent story.
Kids run into stuff all the time. It's totally possible she could have broken her clavicle running full speed into a parked car. I disliked the plaintiff but kinda agree she should be compensated.
I'm against Judy on this one. Even if the driver noticed the kid running towards them, what could she have done? The kid wasn't listening to the crossing guard so idk what the driver was suppose to do.
The accident wouldn't have been avoided but the level of injury to the child would have been less. JJ said if she was in the same situation she would be on alert that a child could pop out of anywhere, driving very very slowly (crawling along as she put it) The Plaintiff wasn't speeding but she wasn't driving slow enough with due care, expecting a child to run out at any moment. She said you wouldn't expect a child to run out from where the child did. Kids do daft things coming out of school. Anyone who drives near schools knows that 🤷🏾♀️
What could she have done? Let’s start by what she said…by not ASSUMING kids wouldn’t be there. She clearly was going faster than she should have been and not paying close enough attention or as JJ said she wouldn’t be so badly injured. I’ve seen someone ride a bike into a parked car and just gets scrapes. She was driving too fast and admitted she assumed there wouldn’t be any children there when lo and behold…a child was there.
Either way, the plaintiff should’ve cut her losses over a broken mirror and should’ve been relieved that the little girl is still alive… I’m pretty sure the little girl didn’t go to her car on purpose and break the mirror.
Yep, agree with you. Judge Judy was in the wrong to assume speed. Imagine if the vehicle was stationary. Imagine if it were parked and the child ran into the car. Would the plaintiff still be at fault? I don't think so. So solely because she was driving, she was in the wrong.
Judge Judy is WRONG!!! I disagree with everyone posting here. If the child was running and impacted the side of the car, it wouldn't make any difference how careful the driver was being or how fast the car was going. The child would have run into it anyways! I mean.. have you ever seen someone turn around and run straight into a stationary object like a pole? That sort of thing happens all the time when people get excited or just aren't paying attention. Would it be the pole's fault if you ran into it? Now, I wouldn't sue an injured child's mother over a freaking mirror (although they can run $350 easy). But technically and legally, the mother is responsible for the damage her minor child did to the plantiff's car. If it had been an adult jogger that had run directly into the plaintiff's car under identical circumstances, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all! Only because it happened to a cute little girl is everyone sympathetic to the mother.
@@stef1986100 9-year-olds don't understand consequences? Only in your warped world! Besides, this is supposed to be a court of law. Not the court of public opinion or personal preference. The child ran directly into the side of the car. Therefore, it didn't matter how fast or slow the driver was going. If the driver had stopped completely the girl would have still hit the car and broke her clavicle regardless. The parent is responsible for the damages the child made no different than if a 9-year-old threw a rock through your window and hit you in the head! If a child was playing with matches and burned your house down you wouldn't say it's okay because children don't understand consequences. You'd sue for damages and win!
@@jasonjames4254 This case is petty. Kids between the ages of 11-12 need supervision to cross the road and you are saying the 9 year is old completely responsible?
@@stef1986100 WTH is going on with kids nowadays? Why are modern kids so dumb? From the age of 5, I walked 9 blocks to school every day crossing roads with stoplights. My dad grew up on a farm and was literally riding a horse to school by himself at age 7. Now you're telling me a 12-year-old needs help to cross the street?!? SMH!
@@jasonjames4254dude, my sons 9 in July...doesn't matter how many times I educate him on looking both ways and crossing at the right part of a pavement he STILL doesn't fully understand consequences 🤦♀️ it's why kids aren't allowed to walk home from school if they live a certain distance away until they are in the double digits and even then it states it depends on the maturity of the child 🤦♀️
This case JJ was way out of line. The plaintiff was a piece of work but not sure what defendant was thinking on counter suit. One of the weirder JJ cases imo.
I am impressed with Emmy's mother for staying calm through this. I was getting frustrated and cannot imagine how upset she must have felt. Good on her for keeping her composure for her daughter and not escalating the situation even more.
@@JoanBrown-j3eI believe this case was judged based on the age of the child and typical child behavior. I believe this case would've been settled differently if the child were a teenager!
When I'm by a school letting out, I'm hyper vigilant for a good sized radius, not just by the crossing guards. Kids run around and jaywalk randomly all the time.
You can be "hyper-vigilant" all you want, but that won't prevent a delinquent kid from hitting your vehicle. Just as deer often broadside a vehicle going down the road - which has happened to me - nothing the driver can do to prevent bad behavior such as this. Emy(?) has to learn where to cross, and where not to cross; but she didn't learn anything in JJ's court room here.
@@CanadianMonarchist We watched the end of the episode, and Emmy is clearly a little b word. Hence the fact shes running in the street and ignoring crossing guards.
@@TheNichq Personally I don’t think it’s kind to refer to a child as a b-word, but it is entirely possible she is. I lost my sympathy for the plaintiff when she said she would sue her mother if she had been killed.
Children are unpredictable and at that age not very aware of their surroundings. I agree with JJ. That little girl had her life flash before her eyes and I bet she will never cross the street without a crossing guard again. Hearing the mom explain what the accident looked like and the little girl covered in blood, I’m super surprised this lady decided to sue 🤦🏽♀️ I always pay attention to when the schools are let out because I would hate to injure or god forbid kill someone’s child. If you’re in a vehicle it’s your responsibility to pay attention 🤷♀️
Maybe she decided to sue not because she disliked the girl but her mum. I mean the driver obviously bothered to learn the girls name and from the girl's statements was super worried when she was hit. I'm sure after making sure the girl was alright she tried to bring up the topic of having her mirror paid back but the girl's mum was having none of it, based on how she was getting ready to countersue. It's a lose lose situation all around
@@lizxu322 I don’t think I implied that she disliked the little girl 🤔 and if the dislike was for the mother she’s weird. I just think that if I were to hit a child in a school zone my thoughts after wouldn’t be to sue for a rear view mirror 🤷♀️ I would just be thankful that the child is alive. Plus…if someone hit my child and then wanted to sue ME I wouldn’t be very happy lol
If you wantch a video it's your responsibility to pay attention. The reckless child ran into the side of the car. There is nothing the driver could have done. Why should she have to pay for the other mother's incompetence in child-rearing?
@@icturner23 lmao oh yeah? Really? It’s my responsibility to pay attention to videos I watch on YT?😂😂 dude shut up 🤦🏽♀️ idk if you watched the whole thing but I’m agreeing with a woman whose had many many years of experience in being a judge. I agree with how she ruled this case 🤷♀️ my opinion is still the same 3 months later 😂 if you’re driving near a school especially if it’s being let out then you should be paying attention! To assume that children will only exit one way of the school is ridiculous and idiotic.
If my child ran out into a parking lot and smacked into someone's car, you wouldn't have to take me to court to pay for the damage, I would have paid for the damage immediately.
It's pretty clear she ran towards a moving car, and it clipped her with the side mirror while going around 10-15 mph. The car was not at a standstill or going 2 mph.
I honestly don't see why everybody is against this woman. Yeah the kid smacked the car and broke the side mirror. Was it on purpose? Hell no but since it was an accident that doesn't really absolve you from any damages. The mother of the girl should have at least offered compensation for the broken mirror. Even though it sucks that the girl got hurt, she should be taught about owning up to it.
0:35 I did not expect a child to come out where they're not supposed to. THAT'S EXACTY THE POINT! I never heard a plaintiff say a more self-incriminating statement.
She's like a more tame version of the mom who let her 14-year-old son and his girl friend drive her car around unsupervised (which resulted in the girl friend dying) and sued the girl's mother for damages to the car, even though her daughter had DIED in that accident. The nerve...
that's not entirely it and had it been another court could have been seen differently. the mother let the son drive. The son gave the keys to the girlfriend. Note here the proble is the SON gave the keys to the girlfriend and not the girlfriend stealing it. However, despite being given it by the son, she still had no permission and was reckless. Other judges would have seen the daughter as the guilty party and the mother of the daughter responsible. But Judy was ruling on the fact the SON gave the girlfriend the keys and not the girlfriend taking them. So the son became at fault because he didn't have permission to give away the keys and since the son is at fault in this view point, who's responsible for the son? In another scenario, kid did steal someone's car. Drove it and wrecked, killing themselves. their mother was sued for the totaled car and didn't matter she had just lost a son, she was responsible for what her son did.
@@dragames The accident happened on the property of the son's mother - so she (the mother) was doubly at fault for being irresponsible for two minors on her watch!!
@@Ayjayem333 Kiiind of...well, half part true. The fact it happened on her property isn't the problem unless her property was faulty to where the error of her property caused the accident. to the second point, being the one on watch FOR the minors, that is very valid.
This happened recently in my city but with high-school students. The kids were to blame for running across the street, not the driver who hit one of them.
If I was the mom I would be thinking “thank you judge for understanding but could we please not talk abt the hypothetical death of my child please!” Lol! JJ said it like 4 times lol.
Realistically, I feel the mom and daughter need to head that. Parents need to instill in their children the importance of crossing safely, just as much as kids need to understand that.
@@ariannabrown8131 and parents need to remember kids can be anywhere leaving the school and to drive carefully everywhere not just at assigned crossing points 😏
1:55 Tyler is bored, takes out money and wants to say “mum you’re repeating yourself, here’s the money for the mirror can we go home?” Mum ” but Tyler she hit the side of MY car”
My dad had a very close case happen to him. In his case, a 7 year old literally jumped in front of his car; thankfully since it was a school area, my dad was going super slow. The only thing that happened to the child was that his glasses flew away and broke. My father's insurance PAID for the child's glasses, period. My dad's car had no damage but he couldn't have cared less if the car was totaled. This was many years ago and to this day he still thinks about the disgrace that could have happened.
The plaintiff is a piece of work! You always expect the unexpected when in school zones, parks, parking lots, and neighborhoods. One night my godfather was at the park with his wife and it was pouring down hard. His wife saw a kid briefly and then he vanished. My godfather was about to drive off but she told him no. The kid had slipped stepping off the sidewalk and fell in front of the car. He could have been hurt if she hadn’t noticed him!
Agree, I also I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior. I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
Agree, I also I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior. I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
Plantiiff wasn't paying attention when hundreds of kids are being released from school as a parent you know kids come from everywhere. Judge asked a very simple question that she couldn't answer. Case dismissed
As someone who ran full speed into a parked car at 9 years old and came out of it with a fracture and some missing teeth, Judge Judy is wrong to say that it’s impossible that the kid broke bones by running into the car herself. It’s very possible, and was rather easy in fact lol
Okay but send us the catastrophic damage you did because you were a child with supernatural powers to somehow go 75mph and crush metal. Cause even when I did the same and got a fracture, I still didn't make a dent.
@@jamie1602 Ok so your commenting on a 4 week old comment, but at a glance i never said I destroyed the vehicle, only myself. As for asking for evidence of something that happened 25 years ago, well sorry but we're past your statute of limitations at this point.
I’m guessing JJ didn’t want to actively blame the child which is why she dismissed the case. Especially because it seems pretty clear that the child ran into the car. Not sure how someone is supposed to anticipate having a child run into your side mirror
Not just a person but a kid on school grounds. In that situation you move cautiously. Can you imagine how fast she must’ve been going to break the mirror off her car?
What are you talking about? The mother of the little girl didn't come to court to sue the lady for hitting her girl, but to defend herself because that old bat took the mother to court to sue her for damaging her car mirror. That leather couch shouldn't be driving fast enough to shatter her mirror and break a little girls clavicle in a school zone.
I totally understand the case, but the mom shouldn’t have sued the plaintiff , instead talk to her daughter about the danger of crossing the street like that, JJ knows the little girl ran into the car by accident. I’m so happy my daughter’s school is super organized in that matter, they have employees outside making sure kids obey the rules , if they don’t, they go get them right away and talk to patients. I love that!
The procedure for afternoon pickup at my local elementary school is very strict. Once you pick up your child from the designated area, they actually require you to drive fairly quickly while leaving the parking lot in order to keep traffic moving swiftly. They even put out street cones that mark the in/out travel lanes with speed signs. Otherwise, it would take forever for all the drivers to be able to pick up their children. So although of course it’s important to always pay attention and be alert, I don’t agree with Judge Judy’s assertion that a driver is always at fault in a school zone even in situations where you have no time to react.
Suing for a mirror considering the situation is petty IMO...but it's clearly Emy's Fault...I'm really surprised Judge Judy wasn't more attuned to how this could have happened and more than likely did happen.
If the car had been stopped, sure. That she was moving at all meant she had no chance. That mirror is also moving forward, and even very low speeds for a car can equal a surprising amount of force. Again, she should have just counted herself as lucky it wasn’t worse.
If she wasn’t expecting kids to leave school in that area, she was most certainly not driving slow, because she thought she was in a zone where she could start speeding..
The same thing happened to me 25 years ago. The incident happened in a neighborhood. A little boy ran between two cars parked on the street.and hit my side mirror as I was slowly going down a street. It did crack my mirror but the boy had a bloody nose and small cut on his forehead that was bleeding profusely. I didn’t even think about my cracked mirror. Still gives me nightmares. The boy was taken to the hospital and was sent home a few hours later with six stitches. I eventually got the mirror fixed.
How does any of that change the fact that the kid who broke your mirror was at fault and broke the law? Just cause you didnt sue, when you could have, doesnt mean someone else shouldnt.
I am an auntie and I have a nephew that is 6 yrs old, in kindergarten and I have had many opportunities, since he started kindergarten, to pick him up from school. He LOVES it when Auntie Keriane picks him up, because this usually means I am spending the night and he loves hanging out with me. I am EXTREMELY careful when leaving the school to watch for children....because they are very little and hard to see sometimes and they can be rabbits and dart away from their parents in an instant. When I am picking him up, I make absolutely sure my nephew is buckled in safely before we even move and then I look THREE TIMES before I put my car in motion to exit the school to ensure that no children are in my path. And if she WAS going extremely slowly, as she claims, HOW did this cause an impact SO SEVERE that the child's clavicle to be broken and she had severe bruising that required stitches. That sounds to me like you were driving TOO FAST given you were at an elementary school and you weren't paying good enough attention to your surroundings and you ran into her. You are EXTREMELY lucky that your 1000lb car didn't kill this child or injure her more severely than you did. You are DAMN LUCKY that all she suffered was some bruising and a broken clavicle. You are damn lucky she isn't permanently paralyzed or she didn't lose a leg or an arm in the collision or hit her head and suffer brain damage. And yet, you have the AUDACITY, not only to sue this little girl's parents, but to make her parents pay for the damage to your car when this collision was 1000% YOUR FAULT, in the first place. Yes, the child shouldn't have darted out into the road, but she is a child. YOU are the adult who is driving the car. Therefore, Madam, it is YOUR responsibility, as the driver of this 1000 lb missile, to drive SAFELY and the mindful of your surroundings....ESPECIALLY when there are children in the vicinity of where you are driving. If I were you, I would be APOLOGIZING to this little girl AND her parents...apologizing PROFUSELY for hitting this child with your car because you weren't paying careful enough attention to where you were going and you have caused her excruciating pain and trauma. AND I would have offered to pay for her medical bills AND pain and suffering, because I'm SURE this child was in a great deal of pain and she was traumatized by this experience.
The parents of that girl shouldn't even have a counter suit, which is probably why JJ didn't even entertain it. Those parents failed that girl, possibly even that school. However, the way the girl was talking, I feel like she probably lied to her mom about the situation.
The fact that she said I don't know. I'm not going to answer that. When asked if she would be suing if the child had died is sad. Just the fact that she's so caught up on what the little girl did that was wrong that she'd actually consider it shows a lot about her character.
i feel like the plaintiff would have won if she stuck to regular court lol. on the opposite end of judge judy's hypothetical scenario, if the little girl never broke a bone and walked away with a minor bruise but the mirror still broke, would the plaintiff then be right to sue? idk, I personally wouldn't sue but I do think the plaintiff would be entitled to getting reimbursed the mirror repair costs.*shrug* but what do I know lol
In my state, no. It’s a school zone. That’s why there are multiple signs always saying that. You hit a kid, or even an adult, in those areas and guess what? You are responsible. Pedestrians have the right of way in most these situations.
@@ibcheel9021 school zones do not absolve pedestrians of their legal responsibilities. in this case, literally everyone agrees the driver, the plaintiff, was not at fault. the kid literally ran INTO her car, the car did not run into the kid. therefore, if the driver can prove they were driving responsibly and following all school zone laws, and the kid in fact ran into the SIDE of their car after leaping onto the road outside of a crosswalk, then the plaintiff will have an easy day in court getting money back for fixing the broken mirror the kid irresponsiby caused. they even got a credible witness, the only thing that would have helped even more was a dash cam. hell, I can even understand partial liability and only getting half of the cost of fixing the mirror. ultimately, judge judy's verdict was merely fueled by morals and trying to make a person suing a kid seem like the asshole when they were well within their right to do so.
@@vibrantpixeIs I understand what you are saying. I only was stating the laws in my state. Even with a dash cam, again in my state, it would not matter. SCHOOL ZONE. I am happy this wasn’t me, but someone I’ve know went through someone practically jumping on their car and they were still liable. I get that the plaintiff just wanted to recoup their loss and the crossing guard thought they were doing the right thing, however I don’t think the child would be liable because it’s still a school zone
@@meowpurrrrr you’re right she couldn’t have done anything else than just stop. It’s a “cut your losses” kind of thing and even though you’re out a mirror, walk away.
The crossing guard saying that the girl ran into the car terrifies me. I mean, I understand what happened, but she's a child. To defend this woman over a mirror instead of saying thank God the child is alive is beyond me.
Did you hear her speak at the end of the case? Emy already acts like a mouthy, know it all teenager at age 9, not a "little angel" if this is any clue to how she normally behaves!
totally agree, when I was 5 I crossed the road where I shouldn't have and was hit by a pushbike, my parent's paid for the riders bike damages without question. Same story here, the other party being the girl was in the wrong, if anything the school could possibly be deemed at fault. In Australia, kids that age are taken to the place to cross and supervised. There is an area to cross, flagged and a crossing guard goes out first with a sign to stop the traffic before the kids cross. The school did not take enough precautions to prevent this from happening.
Yet she countersued for her brat kid crossing where she shouldn't and t-bone a moving vehicle. Kid has an attitude if you see at the end when she talks. She won't learn with a mother like that.
@@lisaparrey1343 Obviously, JJ wouldn't let the cross guard talk anymore when he wanted to but you could tell that the kid was taken to the cross area but didn't listen and ran out where she wanted.
The little boy is over there playing with a $5 bill like his mom bribed him to sit there and behave😂😂😂
You know that’s what happened lol
I thought the same thing! 😆
So quick to jump
Absolutely!!🤣🤣 He’s adorable!!
Clearly. This woman thinks money is the only things that matters.
She killed it when she said “no one expects kids to cross there” gave yourself away
not to mention that first the child was 15 feet ahead of her, and later she didn't see the child until she'd hit her with the car. All the best to you!!
Yup,,,busted on her own testimony
Like you got understand this people assess drivers can’t see everything at once and another thing. If Kay can’t fall school ground rules and they hit a car they should be responsible because let me put it like this. I was stupid enough not to follow school ground rules I hit a car and I was responsible, so what is the difference with this bc it’s a child like. Like a child to not dart across the road with moving vehicles in general, it’s common sense.
I do not agree with Judge Judy’s ruling. She did not understand the situation because of the cross guard even told her to stop and she refused. It should not be on the driver. The girl refuse to listen to instructions so she should deal with the consequences.
@@charlesgallagher8692 i suspect that they film the case and then edit it to fit the time slot. There's a law in the USA and Canda that states that NO parent is financially liable for a child's carelessness.......only for malicious acts. Judge Judy didn't have time to make that point. It may seem unfair, but that's the law of the land.....the plaintiff would have lost in every court in the land because it's not a malicious act. They passed the law because if they hadn't the courts wouldn't have had time to hear anything but kid damage cases. Cheers.
JJ: "If the child had been killed, would you still sue the defendant to pay for your mirror?"
Plaintiff: "I don't know"
Me: 👁👄👁
It was an unfair leap from an injury to death ... JJ should not have made it. But some wars are best not fought and the plaintiff should have just walked away
I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior.
I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
The reason she didn't answer was because the answer would have been yes.
Okay so what if the child broke her mirror but didn't get injured? Is it okay to sue then? In neither situation should it change the outcome. Plaintiff wasn't at fault. The girl got hurt based on her own actions, not the plaintiff's. And it's not fair to ask these situations since that's not the case.
My jaw just dropped when she said "I don't know, I'm not going to answer that question." If it were the other way around and the little girls mother had hit one of those little boys, she would be suing the little girls mother for everything under the sun 🙄
Omg the little girl surprised me at the end. She seemed so sweet and reserved in court and the moment she’s interviewing she sounds like a sassy teen 🤣
😂😂😂
For real 😂😂😂😆
She smirked a couple times when they randomly showed her. 😂
I feel like if they allowed her to talk, they would've lost that case & the mother would've paid for that dam mirror 😂
@@CSNGregoryShe sure did - she was enjoying it all.
I see the judge's point. In a school zone, expected the unexpected.
Especially at a school. I’m always extra cautious anywhere that you can expect children to be because they’re tiny and they’re quick and they’re still learning the things adults already know.
Sadly, it could happen simultaneously as you pull off a kid t-bone you. Being careful won't save you from the unexpected unless you parked all day until all kids are gone.
Absolutely! I always expect the unexpected, esp. in a school zone. The plaintiff is a narcissist.
I’m actually surprised the school cop didn’t ticket the plaintiff.
I mean, if you've ever taken a Driver's education course ... they literally teach you to watch for children and pedestrians in general, as you can't predict what someone else will do ... I'm always super cautious in areas I know children are at play. This woman just wants money for something she IS at fault for. You can't control what a 9 year old child will do. You can tell them as much as you want and hope they listen, but at the end of the day, we as adults need to be more cautious and observant.
When the judge asked “ what if you killed her, will you be suing her mother?” And how she still try to justify that it’s a 9 years old fault and refuse to answer the question says a lot about the type of person she is
Exactly
That's a ridiculous question to ask the woman because that didnt HAPPEN, playing "what if" games like that is unprofessional and stupid. I remember a state sent the widow of an accident death- her husband, a bill for the highway sign his car destroyed in the accident, tacky, but there was damage and a loss there.
I think she didn’t want to answer because the answer would’ve been “no” so it wouldn’t have helped her case. If that makes sense.
The only reason to refuse that question is because she thinks it would be OK to sue for a mirror whether the child was injured or killed. What a monsterous woman.
I just said that to my friend she couldn't answer says it all really x
When Judge Judy starts jumping up and down in her chair, and having to ask the same question to a witness, you know someone is about to learn a lesson the hard way. Love it!
The woman still does not get it and never will. So many of these around.
😂😂😂
Kids run out from in between parked cars all the time. That's why as an adult, you must stay vigilant and expect the unexpected. The plaintiff is too stubborn and lacks empathy to be reasonable. With her attitude, I'm surprised she hasn't been involved in other child related accidents at the school. She wasn't looking at all while her car was moving. She's, clearly, a narcissist and will never accept the fact she did anything wrong.
What an arrogant Judge. Children make mistakes and this one did. It's not the drivers fault. It's the child. That's what's so going wrong with this world. Children are not being held accountable and so they get entitled and have no manners.
@@russellmaynard5127Wrong. Crossing guard and driver said they saw her 15 then 30 feet away. If she stopped the car when she saw the child, like an adult, the child wouldn't have had anything to run into. The plaintiff told on herself.
"next time she's going to cross at the green, and not in-between". 😂😂. That line was from old public service announcement commericals reminding kids how to cross. Great reminder.
The amount of times she said "I was driving extremely slowly" leads me to believe otherwise.
And I think its a major reason as to why JJ didnt rule in her favor, she simply didnt believe her. I think if she had a dashcam that proved how slow she was going and how she really didnt have time to react, the judgement would have been different
@@ashley1570 Even if she didn't have time to react (which certainly happens sometimes), if she were driving at a slow enough speed we can be pretty sure that her mirror would have fared a lot better than it did.
What does it matter? The girl wasn't paying attention and ran into her car. She didn't hit the girl by driving sideways.
I don't believe it was a side on collision like you think. I think the path was clear and the car moved in front of the girl and that's how she hit it
Yes I'm sure from the way the lady spoke, she repeated herself way too many times and her movements and facial expressions didn't match what she was saying, I'm certain she was driving too fast and hit the girl with the front corner of her car and the force threw the girl down the side of the car onto the mirror. Also the woman refusing to answer the hypothetical question of would she have sued if the girl had died is her thinking yes but knowing she'd look bad if she admitted it, which is horrendous. The judge is right you should expect children in a school zone and children don't listen because they are children, every parent knows that and I doubt her boys are perfect either.
I think the judge was more annoyed with the plaintiff bringing this to court rather than focusing on whether or not she even had a case. I don’t blame her. I was annoyed too. I would have been so startled by her getting hurt that I would have been checking on her daily rather than worrying about a darn mirror.
Lady, go to the parts yard and get a new mirror and call it a day.
I want my damn car keep your little brats off the street lucky they didn't get ran over and you have to buy me an oil pan
totally agree with everything you said
Exactly Because if it was her child she wouldn’t want the mother to sue for a stupid part of the car that could be fix but people life you couldn’t bring back I thank god the little girl is ok 🙏
Lady is just stupid. Period.
I understand, but it is not professional. The judge should see it from a legal point
Judge Judy was testing the plaintiff’s moral compass, and she couldn’t even comprehend it 😭
another case of a young kid stealing someone's car and wrecking it and they died. car owner sued the mother of the kid who stole the car.
Yeah, lot of people thought "how could you do that" Well, they didn't ask for their car to be stolen either by their kid.
"What's a moral?" - plaintiff
When the plaintiff refused to even entertain the judge’s hypothetical and answer it I think we all knew what her answer was. She still would have sued. *That’s* why she refused to answer. She knew it would make her look even worse.
If she would NOT have sued if, in the *exact* same circumstances, the child had died then she’d have no reason *NOT* to say that.
Well other than it’s not good for her case, but by that point it was obvious she wasn’t going to win her case. Maybe not to HER but to everyone else.
@@dragameswas that a case on Judge Judy out of curiosity?
That particular situation imo is rather different than this one.
While I’m not sure how young the kid was, I’d imagine they were older than the girl in this case who got hurt. So probably old enough to know better than to steal a car.
Not only that but in the case you mentioned the kid went out of their way to steal a car and go joy riding. Here you have a young girl crossing the road, maybe doing so carelessly, but still going about her day. And doing so in a setting where drivers in the area have to be especially vigilant to their surroundings.
In the situation you mentioned I can’t say that I would have sued the kid’s parents, but I don’t necessarily fault them for doing so either.
I don’t know the details but for all I know that was the families *only* means of transportation. Perhaps it was an older vehicle that only had PLPD (liability) and/or whatever insurance they may have gotten wouldn’t have been nearly enough to replace the car.
@@ericaschaidt8588 It was not a Judge Judy case. though I can give you cases of a lot of children as young as this girl stealing cars and in one case a 10 year old and 11 year old stabbing a woman to death in a Hyvee Parking lot and then stealing her car to go on a joy ride (I remember because this one happened at the Hy vee I used to go to)
The reason I bring this up is because they're saying that they couldn't think to sue the parents after having their kid suffer such a grave injury. It doesn't matter, what matters is fault and in this case the arbitration could easily be voided because of how JJ handled it (unless there's stuff edited out) because there is nothing there that people are trying to claim that the driver was driving recklessly and instead a very important piece of information that isn't in the episode discussed... The hill. Look at the place the kid crossed, she went on a hill that doesn't even seem to have a sidewalk so she ran down a hill right into a car, where the hill could also increase her speed and carelessness running into the side of a car.
Granted, in this case, you have a few things to consider. 1) her parents for having the girl who somehow didn't know better even at that age or 2) the school for not making sure the kids were crossing where they should be as at this time the kids were under the watch of the school. The school would have been a much better entity to go after here. Especially because of the nature of that hill she ran down.
regardless of anything else, when your kid is under your watch, you are responsible for whatever that kid does. Even paying for it. Accidents are accidents, but that doesn't mean they don't do damage for a careless accident.
Poor Tyler can't escape JJ talking about his theoretical demise 😭
It was said about the girl, too. Yikes! Kids pick up on that.
This is why I will never judge a parent for having their child on a leash. Kids will run into the street in a split second.
Yes I am totally agreeing with you. You have to watch children because yeah they can be playing but it's your job and responsibilities to watch them because some of them does run out just as I was picking up my grandson one day one of the kids just jot it out in front of me but luckily I was barely moving and I hit the brakes so quick I scared me to wear it when I got home I had to lay down and get my nerves back together, along with a nice stiff drink and I went to bed
Exactly.
I’ve seen the same at crowded conventions and airports. One instance of mom looking away for a split second and a child could run off or be abducted. Leashes are essential.
Parents should especially have their kids on leashes and zoos. The parents that are not watching their kids or holding on to the kids hands around gorilla and African dog cages and then blame it on the zoo need to be held responsible. And I think leashes are a wonderful idea.
My friends and I were talking about how we used to be so judgy and say how awful of parents who use those. Then my 4 year cousin was almost ran up under the wheels of a Mardi Gras float. He was standing next to us then in a second darted out into the street. I had to snack him back just in time. Then I’m like where can I get one of those kid leashes? Then when he was a little older like 9 we thought ok we can trust him. No. We look up and he’s following a float down the street. I had to run to go get him.
Is cute little Tyler prepared to pay to fix moms mirror? He has his money out. 😂
He was probably paid by his mother to behave in court.
lmaoooo I own a body shop he's gonna need a few more of those 5 dollar bills lol
She bribed him to keep his mouth shut lol
And the crossing guard!
@@johnnythunder1269100%
She totally bribed that crossing guard.
The kid was in the wrong, but as a parent myself, I wouldn’t take the parent to court over the mirror. Like JJ said, I’ll be relieved that he wasn’t worst than that . Another thing, if you’re use to pick up kids u know well not to expect all of them to cross where they should 😂 never ever my friend , they’ll be running from all over
As if the child hasn't been through enough I think her injuries was enough lesson but to sue the mother for a broken mirror is heartless
Someone has to pay for her mirror, she has 2 boys to support.
I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit thr girl. Its ewuivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on soemthign she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior.
I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
100%.. Thank God for the kid..forever be thankful to God.
What if ur a single mom who can’t afford $200-400 for a new mirror?
When she said, "I'm not answering that question", we already knew what kind of a person we were dealing with.
Bc she knows logically shes still supposed to sue her, suing implies it was the other persons fault, but then judge puts her in the spot by asking an emotional question
She is Karen
To be fair, I agree with her.. it's not the same thing. I mean, I wouldn't sue a kid over a mirror, but still. Kid being alive and kid being dead sparks different emotions.
Well if she didn't do this here insurance would increase, Why she should take a hit for no fault of her?
@@formanga8871 So grow a pair and claim the increase, instead of suing a grieving parent like the second coming of Satan.
Oh my God, by refusing to answer, she basically admitted she would have sued a dead girl’s mom for her mirror, but just didn’t have the guts to say it. She might have done everything right, I did feel for her, but suing for that broken mirror is insane. She should have been thanking God every morning that the little girl didn’t die. Moral of the story: let your kids ride home on the bus!
The kid was too close for bus
She's a full blown narcissist; lack of empathy and no understanding of children.
I disagree. She should have sued to damages not just for the mirror but for trauma for the accident that the girl caused.
@@carolr7823 I live near a school and I see mothers driving like Fangio everyday. but after the crossing guard's statement, It sounds like the girl darted out into traffic. I think JJ was unfair how she dismissed his statement. Most crossing guards are super protective of the kids, and they take their job seriously. If the crossing guard says thats what he saw, I dont think hes lying.
I've seen many kids dart across the road when they see their car, or they get off a bus and run across the road. That said, suing for a few hundred bucks is crazy.
Something like that actually happened on Judge Judy once.
It is always a nightmare dropping off and picking up my kids from school. Some parents drive like lunatics through school parking lots, you wouldn’t believe it!
But she didn’t drive crazily
Ugh I know. Now my kids are teenagers and I have to worry about the high school lots, with THEM driving.
@@mariamaaminu9326 she had to be going at some speed to break her clavicle. I practically just let my car roll around kids, I wouldn't be able to live with myself otherwise lol, I certainly wouldn't sue them.
@Mariama Aminu She didn't drive crazy, but she keeps saying she didn't anticipate the girl coming out from where she did. But she's at at school...kids do stupid things and dart out of everywhere without thinking, so as an adult you ALWAYS have to be on guard. That was JJ's point, but all this lady hears is she's being accused of flooring it and purposely hitting the girl.
It's even worse with middle schoolers. The few times I have to pick up my son is a nightmare because these kids just dart out across the street on whether they are running, biking, skateboarding, or got thier hands on one of those scooters you pay to use. I drive SUPER slow because I'm so afraid of hitting on of the little maniacs. Some of these other parents I see seem to drive like there will never be a kid that runs out in front of them just because there isn't a crosswalk there.
No most picker uppers the mother have brats for kids and the mothers are in a hurry who cares brat....
“I just want to find out who I’m dealing with!!” Classic line…😊
I think what she meant in this case is "I want the world to see who you are".
@@venska9 Well said - and that’s why she refused to answer.
@@venska9 or what kind of idiots she’s up against. Little girl will never see she’s capable of any wrong.
And boy did she find out. If I were her neighbor, just to mess with her, me and my family would wear giant padded suits when we cross her driveway.
@@MyHeart1955 So, you agree with the plaintiff?
If this woman bothered to read the DMV handbook she would know that she herself is responsible. I think she should be embarrased for even bringing this case to court.
She should have left her boys at home but instead they witnessed mom getting ripped apart by JJ lol
😂😂😂😂
She probably thought it would go differently with them being there 😂
When I’m in a school zone, I EXPECT kids to do crazy thing so I am extra cautious. I’m always looking for kids in inconspicuous place.
Do you post 25 mph speed limits during school times?
Sadly, it could happen simultaneously as you pull off a kid t-bone you. Being careful won't save you from the unexpected unless you parked all day until all kids are gone. Happened to me once I looked right (clear), looked left (clear), BAM! to my right side.
@@onlineversionI have to disagree with you 100%. Being careful does indeed help. I experienced it myself...
Even if she was at a complete stop the child would have still hit the side of her car. it wasn't the car that hit the kid, it was the kid that hit the car.
Exactly. THAT'S WHY IT'S A SCHOOL ZONE!
We can all agree on one thing: Tyler's adorability. Undefeated.
He may grow up to be a white policeman
@@siddybhai5987What a ridiculous comment.
Oh yes
@@nicolamunroe1176 yeah a comment of a 🤡
Oh my goodness, yes!! I wanted him to testify!!🤣
That’s like saying “I didn’t expect a deer to run across the road” although there’s a deer crossing sign
There's a deer crossing sign, deer everywhere, 500 deer exiting the forest towards the road specifically, deer are crossing down the way, there's a deer crossing guard, and as the parent of two bambies you already know they can run carelessly into the road.
It's not like that at all. A deer has no awareness whatsoever on what roads and traffic are. An 8 year old does. An 8 year old is perfectly capable of knowing not to run into traffic.
@@Firegloincorrect. If a child had full sense, they'd be tried like adults. And additionally, school zones wouldn't require people to drive slowly and most importantly:
'With caution.'
@@Aizen2468 many children have been tried as adults. Like I said an 8 year old is perfectly capable of knowing not to run into traffic. I'm not sure what having basic common sense in regards to road safety has to do with being tried as a child or adult in a courtroom?
Girl was old enough to know.
Judge Judy had already made her mind not to rule in favor of the plaintiff simply because of the nature of the injury ...
Agree. Truly the broken clavicle its an eeky subject, kind of don't go with the facts.
I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior.
Agreed! Unfair
She reads all the cases beforehand. Like every judge in every court does. They already know what they are getting into.
@@323azteca honestly if I were the defendant I would’ve countersued as well. Only because I was getting sued for a mirror after having to pay way too much in the American healthcare scene. The defendant could have sued earlier too, but didn’t. They filed a counterclaim when having this case shoved their way.
Nah. SIMPLY because if you’re driving through a school area when there’s kids everywhere you have to look like a hawk and not ASSUME there won’t be a kid somewhere you think they won’t be. Simply.
Is this not something that could’ve been handled with a simple insurance claim?
The deductible would have been $500 at a minimum and would have cost a claim on the policy. She would have lost out twice.
@@the_maverik1299okay just pay for it her parents weren’t negligent in this matter she is obviously jealous of that little girl mother and see’s money on her
Not likely because of a deductible. A hit and runs driver knocked my mirror off. I got another from the junkyard for $35 and my friend put it on for me. No way I was making an insurance claim.
Her insurance would have said it was her fault because there has to be a police report and she probably didn't want her premiums to go up. It is her fault and she doesn't want to believe it is her fault
@@kondrasellers2740 Huh?! Absolutely wrong! Yes, the girl's parents weren't negligent but that doesn't absolved them of responsibility. If your kid throws a ball and it smashes someone's windscreen, then the parents are responsible for paying for the damage caused. It's the same here... no one, defendant included, disputes that the child ran into the car and tried to cross the road where she should not have. After dealing the with expenses concerning the girl getting well, the parents should have offered to pay/reimburse the plaintiff for the damage... that's the responsible and ethical thing to do.
This mother should have had some compassion on this little girl. Suing the mother after what happened is shameful.
Yes I could never. You know that child's medical bills were way more than it cost her to fix a mirror
She has to sue. It could 1 year later when the girls mom sues her for a million bucks because the kid now smiles funny.
@@sburker32 So what, if the child is clearly at fault who's paying for the side mirror??
@@bobsibert1968 I'm not saying your wrong that the child's mother should pay for it. I agree. All I'm saying is that since the child was hurt and no major damage done then why add insult to injury so to speak. I just don't think it's something I could do. The child getting hurt taught her the lesson. Besides, why would I pay to go to court for a mirror? Seems trivial to me
@@bobsibert1968 the owner of the car 🤣🤣 I get what where people who share the same opinion as you are coming from but if a judge doesn’t order the person to pay for the mirror then what can you do?
I'm a teacher, and I wonder what the school was doing to allow a kid to run out in the street where there was no cross walk. We are ridiculously cautious with our kids after school and all of the traffic.
I know people with kids who NEVER listen. The laugh and bolt into the street.
I almost got hit by a car trying to get a quarter in the street when I was in elementary school, I was in 3rd grade, one of the teachers (she was one of the third grade teachers, idk if she was helping with crosswalk duty or just happened to be there) quickly grabbed me and pulled me out of the road, I noticed then there was a car driving very slow right next where my head was. She was freaking out, she told me not to do that again. She was a very nice teacher
When I pick up my grandchildren from school I essentially crawl because kids dart out all the time!
Good. As you should, but if a child runs into your car then what?
So? You could be parked and a kid could still run into your car.
Yep I totally agree with you 💯
Yes I could be parked and have a child run into my car but at least I wouldn't be moving.
@@robinjohnson9915 Americans...
Judge Judy had time this case it should have been ended a long time ago.
Yes
Judge Judy did the right thing. She dragged it out just enough for the plaintiff to expose herself for the ginormous asshole that she is. I can assure you people who know this woman fucking hate her.
UUhm, if a kid hit my car and was hurt, I would be relieved it is only my mirror broken and not the child hurt more.....I could never take the child to court for a broken mirror.
I feel the exact same way I think the plaintiff is a heartless b****
Took the mom to court not the child. Yeah the mom was relieved that the kid wasn't killed for hurt more but she has a family to support and does not have the money to buy a new car mirror and if you look at the picture it's alot more damage then just a mirror. Not everyone wealthy.
Not all families like yours have $350 to spare for damage caused by someone else.
@@williamxie771 that’s why you have insurance, Karen.
@@BlitzoSuck33 so she would have an accident on her record and her premiums would go up, mega Karen.
"There was no reason the child should have ever been there"
Yeah, in a school zone, at kick out time, on a school day. Shocking and unexpected!
Then blame the adults who responsibility to keep childrens away from traffic.
@@formanga8871 You mean parents? Or is it not everyone's job to keep the little ones safe.
Pedestrians have right of way.
Drivers in school zones need to creep.
People need to accept blame for things that are their fault.
You drive a car, you take the responsibility.
@@SylvanApe Not really, If a child come and clashes themselves on my car it's their fault, As car was following the rules.
It's the responsibility of an adult who is supposed to monitor them.
@@formanga8871 "If a child come and clashes themselves on my car it's their fault"
Only if your car is, and has been for a reasonable interval, stationary. They are children and have little 'responsibility' - which was your point I believe.
Also, the law disagrees with you.
@@SylvanApe Depending on which law? Car was moving on the speed it was supposed to be hence why the judge clearly said she was not at fault here.
Also it's the responsibility of an adult that was monitoring the children to make sure they not do what that girl did, The driver had a loss without their fault hence the case here.
This case is my worst nightmare. Whenever I drive in school zones or parking lots I’m always afraid a kid will jolt out in front of my car. Kids will be kids and unfortunately the nature of childhood doesn’t include much forward thinking most times. I truly feel for the little girl and the driver. Lose lose all around.
Exactly. I don’t think the plaintiff was intentionally speeding but people don’t understand how fast 20-25 mph really is and how easy it is to go faster than that.
My neighborhood has so many children I get paranoid just hoping they don’t dart out into the street because they can come from anywhere.
@@diamondwhite3908 it wasn't proven she was speeding. Heck, the girl can run into a motionless car and still break her clavicle depending on how she lands. Cos it's a fragile bone and is not meant to have pressure put on it
@@lizxu322 I didn’t say she was speeding. I just said that the 20-25 mph she may have thought she was going is an easy speed to go over. It makes no sense that at any speed she wasn’t anticipating that a child or a person may not walk out from a place where they normally wouldn’t cross. Yes, the car rider line is a pain and you just want to get out of the parking lot. But a little caution goes a long way. People cross the street at the wrong place in grocery store parking lots so why wouldn’t it happen at a school?
@@lizxu322 Not with that much damage caused to the car. There are formulas we can use to figure out how fast a car was going based on how much damage was done. If you're a stationary object and a car is coming at you, the damage done is catastrophic. If a car is moving slowly and the object is stationary, you usually only have dents. That's why when a deer is in the highway, it can often kill drivers because the deer freezes up and becomes a stationary object.
This is also why people don't often die from collisions in New York City. Cars go very slow during the gridlock traffic and people often only have mild bruises and cars only have very minor dents. If you're going low speed and the car coming at you is going low speed, there's usually little to no damage for both parties. Unless you have an underlying condition but you're not one of those weird sick people like I am, so I'm just here to set you straight on how the real world works for the rest of you!
So if I put in what she's suggesting... then this child has to be running like Usain Bolt to receive those types of injuries AND damage the car.
Besides... This is untrue! Due to children's bones not having developed, they're flexible. They usually don't get many breaks in comparison to adults. Breaking your arm as a child is relatively rare unless you play high contact sports, do cheerleading, or try to jump off a very high ledge. Which we don't have many of those these days due to a great deal of cul de sacs being built and those uneven areas being pounded into the ground. I did know a kid who broke his arm around this age. He got it climbing an eight foot tree. Not that many of us got eight foot trees these days.
She was going faster than she said she was (this child is not an Olympic runner but if she is then get her a trainer NOW) and witness testimony is often shoddy. When you see kids being dumb every day, one being half dumb instead of all dumb is not gonna register.
I work at an elementary school. Kids go and come out where they aren’t supposed to all the time. They make mistakes, they are children for goodness sakes! I for one wouldn’t even think about the mirror, I would be more concerned about the well-being of the child. A mirror can be replaced, a child cannot.
I would file an ins claim and. be done with it.
And yet you aren't her. You don't know her financial situation so saying I for one is so irrelevant
Or maybe you should teach them better? An 8 year old is perfectly capable of knowing not to run into traffic even the really stupid ones.
This level of inhumanity is astounding. I have kids, I have had kids hit my car with their Bike, their Skate Board, on Roller Skates, while waiting to pick up my Boys from School, from Footy Training, from a 5ht Class School Dance and NEVER worry about my car but always about their wellbeing. I'd imagine if the show was on the other foot, she'd go off and accuse me of hitting her child.
Morally I get where the judge and everyone is coming from. But from a legal standpoint the mom of the little girl should pay. Since it was her daughter’s fault. And I say this because living near elementary schools I know how incredibly slow the cars drive. So no way the woman could have even moved her car to avoid the girl from running into her car. The whole situation sucks all around. But that’s why they took it to court. For a legal stance not a moral one. And I totally agree that from a moral it looks bad. All the hypothetical scenarios shouldn’t matter. Because legally they didn’t happen.
A car side mirror cost from $75.00-$200.00 but a human life is priceless ❣️
Maybe she got 7 years of bad luck.
Cool... then the girls mother can replace it then
@@Chopper650then the plaintiff can pay for the kids medical bills, which seriously outweigh the cost of a mirror 😂😂
@@gRinchY-op5vr Why should she pay bills for parents' fault?
More like $300 for mirror and $200 for Labor.
My fiancé could fix her mirror for $25 and some gorilla glue 😂
literally people in the comments section claiming this woman won't be able to feed her two sons because the mirror is broken 🙄. Her and the crossing guard our secret trying to Sue this woman. Also the kid playing with the five at the end was obviously they could playing with his bribe money. Someone crashed into my mirror while I was in the Target parking lot and I just duct taped it.
I could probably do it for $3 and a roll of duct tape.
Duct tape, spray foam ;)
She’s suing over a damn mirror? It’s ridiculous and she’s just refusing to understand what the judge is telling her.
You know how dealers are, that mirror was probably thousands of dollars.
That plaintiff thought it a valid point that the child ran into the side of her car causing damage. Very different than if the child had run in front of the car, and then the car hit the child. On a similar note, what if the plaintiff had been stopped in traffic, and the child ran into her car and caused damage? Would you feel the same way? When cars hit cars like this it's usually called a T-bone. I'm not saying I'm unsympathetic, or that the plaintiff is. I'm just trying to explain the plaintiff's perspective.
@@Thunder_Dome45 insurance would have covered that. unless she has none and that would have been illegal 🤷
@@rockydee7499and she'd have a deductible and rate increase. Not her fault kid's a brat from mommy poor parenting shrug
@@birussa brat? All kids run when they’re not supposed too. Doesnt make them brats. You on the other hand, are an adult and you’re a joke. Talking badly about a little kid.
I’m would have harshly dismissed her case the moment the plaintiff kept talking over me and said she’s not going to answer that. Shows how careless & heartless she is. A car mirror can easily be replaced, not a child’s life.
Why does she need to answer a hypothetical question that was clearly designed to railroad her? JJ is no saint.
I’m an Australian. I’m shocked at what Americans will sue over. This is ridiculous, audacious and insensitive. Maybe keep in touch with the girls mother and see if she could help chuck in for a new mirror, but a court case is gross. And I’m glad Judge Judy saw though it and worked out what type of person she really is. Kids get distracted and absent minded , I’m glad she’s ok and it wasn’t worse.
I would have said the same thing but bravo well said
Yeah, this is what all Americans would do, hence all the Americans in the comments agreeing with the driver...
Also an aussie and 100% Also heard of a six-year-old sued over picking a flower. A flower at a public bus stop.
@@Kalani_Saiko wow
This is a TV show.
I can’t believe this lady brought on this lawsuit. It’s so shocking to me from start to finish. What really got me, is how she kept trying to argue her pointless point. Just 🤦♀️.
You're driving slowly down the street and a kid t-bones your car causing damage. You did nothing wrong. You're not going to try to get their parents to fix it? Really? Really?
@@jerryherrin458 Exactly!
There was an even worse older case where a little girl did die, and the plaintiff was still suing to have her car replaced. Judy was not happy that day.
@@TheEggplantThatAteChicago I mean it sucks but if it's not your fault the girl died and it took out your car (which may have been the only way for you to get to work and make money to support yourself), you deserve to get it fixed, right? Your life shouldn't be ruined because someone else lost their life on no fault of your own. Sometimes the universe is just mean and throws you into situations like this.
@@lizxu322 The little girl's wrongful death was actually the plaintiff's fault, so no, the plaintiff in that case did not deserve to be reimbursed.
Maybe the kid shouldn't have ran into the street. The parent is liable for the damage to the car. Should have taken the case to a real court.
Yup
I'm with the plaintiff 100% too. The defense countersuing shows me the opportunistic attitude and her bad example to an already misbehaving child.
In my state the plaintiff would have lost.
It's like these people don't watch judge Judy..
If I were to go to judge Judy I would practice and find out every what if Judy said this or that do I have a answer and if that's the case can I counter everything judy said... This lady did what I would of done but it just turned into a argument.... I would never go to judge Judy for that reason. Not worth it..
It is a real court.
This video made me realize just how ridiculously slow I need to drive anywhere around a school. Thanks for uploading this!
Honestly, that’s a hard hit for her to break her clavicle and breaking the mirror…. Could not have been creeping that slow….
You don't know how easy it is for bones to broke, Just need an angle and one unexpected hit, Bones are only 10 times stronger than concrete when they get time to prepare of the impact.
Agreed. That plaintiff is an evil person. Pure evil.
Depends on how fast the kid was running when she slammed into the car.
I was thinking the same thing. Emy is small. She doesn't look like she can run very fast. Your clavicle is underneath your chin and head and it's almost impossible to break in a side collision like that. She would have to stick her chest out, pull her chin up, and go smack right into the mirror. The only way this would work is if the vehicle was moving and she hit it at an odd angle. If the vehicle was in motion then the driver is supposed to be checking all of their blind spots to make sure that doesn't happen. Also there's like a million signs at schools saying to be careful as there are children in the area. She ignored those signs and thus this happened.
The child ran into the side of a car. Even if the car has been stopped dead, the impact would have been the same. Speed/movement of the car had nothing to do with this...the child ran into the car. Think of a kid running full out runs into a glass door. The door isn't moving but the impact is enough to knock the kid back several feet and to the ground. Now add a rock to the window at the height of the clavicle. The kid is going to be injured. If the mirror hadn't been there the kid would have just bounced off the side of the car maybe denting the door, but probably not injured except for some bruising.
Tyler was like ok my Mom is on BS today....let me just count my coins 🤣🤣🤣
You WIN the comment for the day..hilarious 😂😂😂😂😂💵💵💵💵💵Tyler and his Five Dollar Bill!!😂😂😂
@@walkingtrails7776 😂😂😂😂😂
Yea little dude just knew how to look cool.
Suing for the mirror is petty but that little girl clearly was in the wrong and Judge Judy spun it to a “what if” which I think is wrong considering it wasn’t the lady’s fault to begin with. Teach your kids to pay attention!
If the plaintiff broke the little girl’s clavicle, she was going too fast in the first place. The little girl isn’t flash she can’t run that fast.
It's why judge judy threw out the counter claim as well. Both sides were in the wrong.
Gabby, why dont you run in front of a car??
she spun it around to teach these parents about teaching their kids how to learn to cross the street carefully. because yes it's real dumb to make the child pay for a mirror, but in a different situation. would the she sue the girls mother if she killed her?
@@marissapearson1441 sheeeeeit 😂
Ain’t no way I’d be suing her. I would’ve been devastated and tried to get that baby to the hospital
The fact that it was a side impact makes me agreed the plaintiff should get paid.
disagree. animals, children, drunk, addicted... you cannot predict how they act on the streets.
Two first two of the list are not implying an active fault.If there would be neglectance by the mom. DIfferent story.
She broke her clavicle, so the plaintiff was either driving fast or not paying attention at all….
@@bja808 how does one drive fast sideways
Kids run into stuff all the time. It's totally possible she could have broken her clavicle running full speed into a parked car. I disliked the plaintiff but kinda agree she should be compensated.
@@MEGIDIOT how does one run so fast that it breaks a side mirror?
I'm against Judy on this one. Even if the driver noticed the kid running towards them, what could she have done? The kid wasn't listening to the crossing guard so idk what the driver was suppose to do.
And that’s why she’s the judge and you’re not
The accident wouldn't have been avoided but the level of injury to the child would have been less. JJ said if she was in the same situation she would be on alert that a child could pop out of anywhere, driving very very slowly (crawling along as she put it)
The Plaintiff wasn't speeding but she wasn't driving slow enough with due care, expecting a child to run out at any moment. She said you wouldn't expect a child to run out from where the child did. Kids do daft things coming out of school. Anyone who drives near schools knows that 🤷🏾♀️
What could she have done? Let’s start by what she said…by not ASSUMING kids wouldn’t be there. She clearly was going faster than she should have been and not paying close enough attention or as JJ said she wouldn’t be so badly injured. I’ve seen someone ride a bike into a parked car and just gets scrapes. She was driving too fast and admitted she assumed there wouldn’t be any children there when lo and behold…a child was there.
Either way, the plaintiff should’ve cut her losses over a broken mirror and should’ve been relieved that the little girl is still alive… I’m pretty sure the little girl didn’t go to her car on purpose and break the mirror.
Yep, agree with you. Judge Judy was in the wrong to assume speed. Imagine if the vehicle was stationary. Imagine if it were parked and the child ran into the car. Would the plaintiff still be at fault? I don't think so. So solely because she was driving, she was in the wrong.
Judge Judy is WRONG!!! I disagree with everyone posting here. If the child was running and impacted the side of the car, it wouldn't make any difference how careful the driver was being or how fast the car was going. The child would have run into it anyways! I mean.. have you ever seen someone turn around and run straight into a stationary object like a pole? That sort of thing happens all the time when people get excited or just aren't paying attention. Would it be the pole's fault if you ran into it? Now, I wouldn't sue an injured child's mother over a freaking mirror (although they can run $350 easy). But technically and legally, the mother is responsible for the damage her minor child did to the plantiff's car. If it had been an adult jogger that had run directly into the plaintiff's car under identical circumstances, we wouldn't be having this conversation at all! Only because it happened to a cute little girl is everyone sympathetic to the mother.
A jogger though isn't a minor. Have you ever seen kids come out after school? They are everywhere. She is 9 and doesn't understand consequences.
@@stef1986100 9-year-olds don't understand consequences? Only in your warped world! Besides, this is supposed to be a court of law. Not the court of public opinion or personal preference. The child ran directly into the side of the car. Therefore, it didn't matter how fast or slow the driver was going. If the driver had stopped completely the girl would have still hit the car and broke her clavicle regardless. The parent is responsible for the damages the child made no different than if a 9-year-old threw a rock through your window and hit you in the head! If a child was playing with matches and burned your house down you wouldn't say it's okay because children don't understand consequences. You'd sue for damages and win!
@@jasonjames4254 This case is petty. Kids between the ages of 11-12 need supervision to cross the road and you are saying the 9 year is old completely responsible?
@@stef1986100 WTH is going on with kids nowadays? Why are modern kids so dumb? From the age of 5, I walked 9 blocks to school every day crossing roads with stoplights. My dad grew up on a farm and was literally riding a horse to school by himself at age 7. Now you're telling me a 12-year-old needs help to cross the street?!? SMH!
@@jasonjames4254dude, my sons 9 in July...doesn't matter how many times I educate him on looking both ways and crossing at the right part of a pavement he STILL doesn't fully understand consequences 🤦♀️ it's why kids aren't allowed to walk home from school if they live a certain distance away until they are in the double digits and even then it states it depends on the maturity of the child 🤦♀️
3:57 I know you lying 😂😂😂😂😂 no way she sounds and acts like this after me saying awww she’s so cute
LoL, Tyler just vibin' with his 5 dollar bill.
JJ was more of a defensive attorney then a judge in this case.
Agreed, she was biased from the beginning.
Yeah she didn’t want that woman to win, I can’t blame her, I didn’t either.
This case JJ was way out of line. The plaintiff was a piece of work but not sure what defendant was thinking on counter suit. One of the weirder JJ cases imo.
I am impressed with Emmy's mother for staying calm through this. I was getting frustrated and cannot imagine how upset she must have felt. Good on her for keeping her composure for her daughter and not escalating the situation even more.
Agreed. The sad thing, if the plaintiff child's had been hit, she would probably sue for all the money in the world.
@@littlesongbird1nope. Emmy's mom didn't take her to safety clasees
Because she knew her daughter did a stupid thing. The child was asked to stop.
@@JoanBrown-j3eI believe this case was judged based on the age of the child and typical child behavior. I believe this case would've been settled differently if the child were a teenager!
@@birusswhat safety classes?
Kids do stupid things., that's why the have to live with their parents until they are 18. It was an accident.
When I'm by a school letting out, I'm hyper vigilant for a good sized radius, not just by the crossing guards. Kids run around and jaywalk randomly all the time.
You can be "hyper-vigilant" all you want, but that won't prevent a delinquent kid from hitting your vehicle. Just as deer often broadside a vehicle going down the road - which has happened to me - nothing the driver can do to prevent bad behavior such as this. Emy(?) has to learn where to cross, and where not to cross; but she didn't learn anything in JJ's court room here.
@@acousticshadow4032You know Emmy personally?
@@acousticshadow4032 she didn't learn anything from you either so that paragraph was useless.
@@CanadianMonarchist We watched the end of the episode, and Emmy is clearly a little b word. Hence the fact shes running in the street and ignoring crossing guards.
@@TheNichq Personally I don’t think it’s kind to refer to a child as a b-word, but it is entirely possible she is. I lost my sympathy for the plaintiff when she said she would sue her mother if she had been killed.
Children are unpredictable and at that age not very aware of their surroundings. I agree with JJ. That little girl had her life flash before her eyes and I bet she will never cross the street without a crossing guard again. Hearing the mom explain what the accident looked like and the little girl covered in blood, I’m super surprised this lady decided to sue 🤦🏽♀️ I always pay attention to when the schools are let out because I would hate to injure or god forbid kill someone’s child. If you’re in a vehicle it’s your responsibility to pay attention 🤷♀️
Maybe she decided to sue not because she disliked the girl but her mum. I mean the driver obviously bothered to learn the girls name and from the girl's statements was super worried when she was hit. I'm sure after making sure the girl was alright she tried to bring up the topic of having her mirror paid back but the girl's mum was having none of it, based on how she was getting ready to countersue. It's a lose lose situation all around
@@lizxu322 I don’t think I implied that she disliked the little girl 🤔 and if the dislike was for the mother she’s weird. I just think that if I were to hit a child in a school zone my thoughts after wouldn’t be to sue for a rear view mirror 🤷♀️ I would just be thankful that the child is alive. Plus…if someone hit my child and then wanted to sue ME I wouldn’t be very happy lol
If you wantch a video it's your responsibility to pay attention. The reckless child ran into the side of the car. There is nothing the driver could have done. Why should she have to pay for the other mother's incompetence in child-rearing?
@@icturner23 lmao oh yeah? Really? It’s my responsibility to pay attention to videos I watch on YT?😂😂 dude shut up 🤦🏽♀️ idk if you watched the whole thing but I’m agreeing with a woman whose had many many years of experience in being a judge. I agree with how she ruled this case 🤷♀️ my opinion is still the same 3 months later 😂 if you’re driving near a school especially if it’s being let out then you should be paying attention! To assume that children will only exit one way of the school is ridiculous and idiotic.
@@Valxmirandacan't anticipate extremes
If my child ran out into a parking lot and smacked into someone's car, you wouldn't have to take me to court to pay for the damage, I would have paid for the damage immediately.
Exactly.
It's pretty clear she ran towards a moving car, and it clipped her with the side mirror while going around 10-15 mph. The car was not at a standstill or going 2 mph.
@@jeffrowisdabest How is it clear?
@TheAmtwhite Just based off the damage. A child cannot run with the force necessary to do that.
I honestly don't see why everybody is against this woman. Yeah the kid smacked the car and broke the side mirror. Was it on purpose? Hell no but since it was an accident that doesn't really absolve you from any damages.
The mother of the girl should have at least offered compensation for the broken mirror. Even though it sucks that the girl got hurt, she should be taught about owning up to it.
0:35 I did not expect a child to come out where they're not supposed to.
THAT'S EXACTY THE POINT! I never heard a plaintiff say a more self-incriminating statement.
Not at this point
What is incriminating about this? The girl ran into her car unexpectedly when she wasn't supposed to.
When you run into traffic you get every injury you deserve. Don't run into traffic and maybe you wouldn't break a bone.
You expect people to just run into the street while your driving? Good news, if someone does, then its their fault and not yours. Cause thats the law.
She's like a more tame version of the mom who let her 14-year-old son and his girl friend drive her car around unsupervised (which resulted in the girl friend dying) and sued the girl's mother for damages to the car, even though her daughter had DIED in that accident. The nerve...
that's not entirely it and had it been another court could have been seen differently.
the mother let the son drive. The son gave the keys to the girlfriend. Note here the proble is the SON gave the keys to the girlfriend and not the girlfriend stealing it. However, despite being given it by the son, she still had no permission and was reckless. Other judges would have seen the daughter as the guilty party and the mother of the daughter responsible. But Judy was ruling on the fact the SON gave the girlfriend the keys and not the girlfriend taking them. So the son became at fault because he didn't have permission to give away the keys and since the son is at fault in this view point, who's responsible for the son?
In another scenario, kid did steal someone's car. Drove it and wrecked, killing themselves. their mother was sued for the totaled car and didn't matter she had just lost a son, she was responsible for what her son did.
@@dragames The accident happened on the property of the son's mother - so she (the mother) was doubly at fault for being irresponsible for two minors on her watch!!
@@Ayjayem333 Kiiind of...well, half part true.
The fact it happened on her property isn't the problem unless her property was faulty to where the error of her property caused the accident.
to the second point, being the one on watch FOR the minors, that is very valid.
This happened recently in my city but with high-school students. The kids were to blame for running across the street, not the driver who hit one of them.
1:17 her repeatedly trying to say kids don’t come out of there; except evidence to kids doing do is to the right
If I was the mom I would be thinking “thank you judge for understanding but could we please not talk abt the hypothetical death of my child please!” Lol! JJ said it like 4 times lol.
JJ was going hard on that, though. I was waiting for her to say like "if Emy is lying on the ground with her life's blood oozing out of her ears..."
Realistically, I feel the mom and daughter need to head that. Parents need to instill in their children the importance of crossing safely, just as much as kids need to understand that.
Judge Judy had to say it more than once only because of the repeated mule headedness of the plaintiff.
@@ariannabrown8131 and parents need to remember kids can be anywhere leaving the school and to drive carefully everywhere not just at assigned crossing points 😏
1:55 Tyler is bored, takes out money and wants to say “mum you’re repeating yourself, here’s the money for the mirror can we go home?” Mum ” but Tyler she hit the side of MY car”
Thx for time stamp:):)!!
Best part of the case was Tyler flashing his duckets trying to sway JJ... he’s pimp😁
oh shoot i am literally laughing my a$$ off because i thought damn Tylers a Baller on a budget b!tch.... im dead....
He’s gonna to be a character when he grows up, he has so much personality 😁😎
😂
He’s too young to be a pimp! Don’t think anything like that!
@@anthonyguarino4242 It makes me sick that people think that growing up to be a pimp is so funny.
5:57 this woman has the intellect of a shoebox. YIKES
My dad had a very close case happen to him. In his case, a 7 year old literally jumped in front of his car; thankfully since it was a school area, my dad was going super slow. The only thing that happened to the child was that his glasses flew away and broke. My father's insurance PAID for the child's glasses, period.
My dad's car had no damage but he couldn't have cared less if the car was totaled. This was many years ago and to this day he still thinks about the disgrace that could have happened.
This woman suing for a side mirror is horrible. Those poor boys.
Do you mean the boys she bribed with please go with what Mommy saying money 😂😂😂
Judge Judy wrong here.... the little girl ran into the side of the car......
Agreed
The plaintiff is a piece of work! You always expect the unexpected when in school zones, parks, parking lots, and neighborhoods. One night my godfather was at the park with his wife and it was pouring down hard. His wife saw a kid briefly and then he vanished. My godfather was about to drive off but she told him no. The kid had slipped stepping off the sidewalk and fell in front of the car. He could have been hurt if she hadn’t noticed him!
So I must pay for my mirror because someone else’s child that old enough to know right from wrong broke it off
Agree
Yes
Agree, I also I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior.
I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
Yes. That’s right. Life’s not fair. Chin up. Be glad you didn’t kill someone because you were speeding anyway.
Exactly...she is not 4 years old.
The way the child spoke to the camera at the end. I thought to myself that she has hoospa! I made up the spelling 😂
I like people who make up words.
What she has is a smart mouth and an attitude like her mother.
Chutzpa (with a hard ch)
@@bjohnson1149 100% agree. If JJ would have let them speak, they would have sunk.
Agree, I also I side with the plaintiff on this one because she didn't hit the girl. The girl hit the car. Its equivalent as if the girl comes and hit the car with a bat. The driver can't stop it. The mom countersuing shows me she is opportunistic on something she is clearly wrong. And she just taught her daughter she can get away with bad behavior.
I get the eekiness from JJ because the clavicle broken just dont fit the facts. Makes it eeky.
I honestly understand the plaintiff’s frustration … but some things you just gotta let go and be thankful it didn’t take a turn to the worst.
The plaintiff SHOULDN'T be frustrated...she should be ASHAMED that she sued over a simple mirror.
Plantiiff wasn't paying attention when hundreds of kids are being released from school as a parent you know kids come from everywhere. Judge asked a very simple question that she couldn't answer. Case dismissed
As someone who ran full speed into a parked car at 9 years old and came out of it with a fracture and some missing teeth, Judge Judy is wrong to say that it’s impossible that the kid broke bones by running into the car herself. It’s very possible, and was rather easy in fact lol
Yep.
Not the point.
@@rdc501yes it is, that's why JJ brought it up... 🤔
Okay but send us the catastrophic damage you did because you were a child with supernatural powers to somehow go 75mph and crush metal. Cause even when I did the same and got a fracture, I still didn't make a dent.
@@jamie1602 Ok so your commenting on a 4 week old comment, but at a glance i never said I destroyed the vehicle, only myself. As for asking for evidence of something that happened 25 years ago, well sorry but we're past your statute of limitations at this point.
I fully believe that kid ran out like they said
I’m guessing JJ didn’t want to actively blame the child which is why she dismissed the case. Especially because it seems pretty clear that the child ran into the car. Not sure how someone is supposed to anticipate having a child run into your side mirror
Exactly. The mom is showing a lot of calm. I'd be incensed with JJ
Yeah. I wonder that too.
It's called defensive driving and being hyper vigilant that someone would do something stupid.
@@screwthisin she had not control over it. The girl ran into her car.
I think it's also that the plaintiff could not really prove the child ran into the car as opposed to the plaintiff hitting the child
Lol the little girl was acting like an angel the whole time at the end she sounds like the girls from Clueless 🤣🤣🤣
A person runs into my car and I'm responsible if they get injured? Give me a break.
Not just a person but a kid on school grounds. In that situation you move cautiously. Can you imagine how fast she must’ve been going to break the mirror off her car?
Did they make her responsibe for the injuries? NO. What in the he!! are you even talking about?😮
What are you talking about? The mother of the little girl didn't come to court to sue the lady for hitting her girl, but to defend herself because that old bat took the mother to court to sue her for damaging her car mirror.
That leather couch shouldn't be driving fast enough to shatter her mirror and break a little girls clavicle in a school zone.
Em’s mom didn’t even have to say a word.
Glad her girl’s okay!
I totally understand the case, but the mom shouldn’t have sued the plaintiff , instead talk to her daughter about the danger of crossing the street like that, JJ knows the little girl ran into the car by accident. I’m so happy my daughter’s school is super organized in that matter, they have employees outside making sure kids obey the rules , if they don’t, they go get them right away and talk to patients. I love that!
The kid with a fresh new 5$ bill..."Hush little baby don't say a word, mommy didn't mean to hit that little girl"
Exactly. Anticipate kids coming out from anywhere and thank God this little kid is ok.
Kid runs into a parked car and blames you, same story here. Woman was barely moving. KID RAN INTO HER CAR - how do you anticipate that?
The procedure for afternoon pickup at my local elementary school is very strict. Once you pick up your child from the designated area, they actually require you to drive fairly quickly while leaving the parking lot in order to keep traffic moving swiftly. They even put out street cones that mark the in/out travel lanes with speed signs. Otherwise, it would take forever for all the drivers to be able to pick up their children. So although of course it’s important to always pay attention and be alert, I don’t agree with Judge Judy’s assertion that a driver is always at fault in a school zone even in situations where you have no time to react.
Suing for a mirror considering the situation is petty IMO...but it's clearly Emy's Fault...I'm really surprised Judge Judy wasn't more attuned to how this could have happened and more than likely did happen.
She could have gone half and half. I saw her do that in another case.
If the car had been stopped, sure. That she was moving at all meant she had no chance. That mirror is also moving forward, and even very low speeds for a car can equal a surprising amount of force.
Again, she should have just counted herself as lucky it wasn’t worse.
Did she give her little boy $5 to sit still @ 1:53?
Lol it looks like it. He's too cute.
If she wasn’t expecting kids to leave school in that area, she was most certainly not driving slow, because she thought she was in a zone where she could start speeding..
She had to have been going faster than she says with that much damage.
The same thing happened to me 25 years ago. The incident happened in a neighborhood. A little boy ran between two cars parked on the street.and hit my side mirror as I was slowly going down a street. It did crack my mirror but the boy had a bloody nose and small cut on his forehead that was bleeding profusely. I didn’t even think about my cracked mirror. Still gives me nightmares. The boy was taken to the hospital and was sent home a few hours later with six stitches. I eventually got the mirror fixed.
How does any of that change the fact that the kid who broke your mirror was at fault and broke the law? Just cause you didnt sue, when you could have, doesnt mean someone else shouldnt.
I am an auntie and I have a nephew that is 6 yrs old, in kindergarten and I have had many opportunities, since he started kindergarten, to pick him up from school. He LOVES it when Auntie Keriane picks him up, because this usually means I am spending the night and he loves hanging out with me. I am EXTREMELY careful when leaving the school to watch for children....because they are very little and hard to see sometimes and they can be rabbits and dart away from their parents in an instant. When I am picking him up, I make absolutely sure my nephew is buckled in safely before we even move and then I look THREE TIMES before I put my car in motion to exit the school to ensure that no children are in my path. And if she WAS going extremely slowly, as she claims, HOW did this cause an impact SO SEVERE that the child's clavicle to be broken and she had severe bruising that required stitches. That sounds to me like you were driving TOO FAST given you were at an elementary school and you weren't paying good enough attention to your surroundings and you ran into her. You are EXTREMELY lucky that your 1000lb car didn't kill this child or injure her more severely than you did. You are DAMN LUCKY that all she suffered was some bruising and a broken clavicle. You are damn lucky she isn't permanently paralyzed or she didn't lose a leg or an arm in the collision or hit her head and suffer brain damage. And yet, you have the AUDACITY, not only to sue this little girl's parents, but to make her parents pay for the damage to your car when this collision was 1000% YOUR FAULT, in the first place. Yes, the child shouldn't have darted out into the road, but she is a child. YOU are the adult who is driving the car. Therefore, Madam, it is YOUR responsibility, as the driver of this 1000 lb missile, to drive SAFELY and the mindful of your surroundings....ESPECIALLY when there are children in the vicinity of where you are driving. If I were you, I would be APOLOGIZING to this little girl AND her parents...apologizing PROFUSELY for hitting this child with your car because you weren't paying careful enough attention to where you were going and you have caused her excruciating pain and trauma. AND I would have offered to pay for her medical bills AND pain and suffering, because I'm SURE this child was in a great deal of pain and she was traumatized by this experience.
The parents of that girl shouldn't even have a counter suit, which is probably why JJ didn't even entertain it. Those parents failed that girl, possibly even that school. However, the way the girl was talking, I feel like she probably lied to her mom about the situation.
The fact that she said I don't know. I'm not going to answer that. When asked if she would be suing if the child had died is sad. Just the fact that she's so caught up on what the little girl did that was wrong that she'd actually consider it shows a lot about her character.
Sometimes a 9 year old girl just isn't gonna know better...
i feel like the plaintiff would have won if she stuck to regular court lol. on the opposite end of judge judy's hypothetical scenario, if the little girl never broke a bone and walked away with a minor bruise but the mirror still broke, would the plaintiff then be right to sue? idk, I personally wouldn't sue but I do think the plaintiff would be entitled to getting reimbursed the mirror repair costs.*shrug* but what do I know lol
Agreed.
In my state, no. It’s a school zone. That’s why there are multiple signs always saying that. You hit a kid, or even an adult, in those areas and guess what? You are responsible. Pedestrians have the right of way in most these situations.
@@ibcheel9021 school zones do not absolve pedestrians of their legal responsibilities. in this case, literally everyone agrees the driver, the plaintiff, was not at fault. the kid literally ran INTO her car, the car did not run into the kid. therefore, if the driver can prove they were driving responsibly and following all school zone laws, and the kid in fact ran into the SIDE of their car after leaping onto the road outside of a crosswalk, then the plaintiff will have an easy day in court getting money back for fixing the broken mirror the kid irresponsiby caused. they even got a credible witness, the only thing that would have helped even more was a dash cam. hell, I can even understand partial liability and only getting half of the cost of fixing the mirror. ultimately, judge judy's verdict was merely fueled by morals and trying to make a person suing a kid seem like the asshole when they were well within their right to do so.
@@vibrantpixeIs I understand what you are saying. I only was stating the laws in my state. Even with a dash cam, again in my state, it would not matter. SCHOOL ZONE. I am happy this wasn’t me, but someone I’ve know went through someone practically jumping on their car and they were still liable. I get that the plaintiff just wanted to recoup their loss and the crossing guard thought they were doing the right thing, however I don’t think the child would be liable because it’s still a school zone
@@meowpurrrrr you’re right she couldn’t have done anything else than just stop. It’s a “cut your losses” kind of thing and even though you’re out a mirror, walk away.
So kids can now run into the side of your car and it's your fault..Good old USA.. more fucked up than usual
The child was wrong, but give it a rest lady. Just be grateful the child is okay
That little girl went from a cute and innocent 9-year-old to a 21-year-old sorority girl in 2 seconds lmao
The crossing guard saying that the girl ran into the car terrifies me. I mean, I understand what happened, but she's a child. To defend this woman over a mirror instead of saying thank God the child is alive is beyond me.
Whether it is defending the woman or not, if it is the truth it is the truth.
Am glad that little angel is ok
Did you hear her speak at the end of the case? Emy already acts like a mouthy, know it all teenager at age 9, not a "little angel" if this is any clue to how she normally behaves!
It’s so mean to be asking money from a child who has had such serious injuries. I think this automatically put judges back up as it did mine.
If I were the girl's parent, I would've paid for the damages. This shouldn't have gone to court.
Exactly
totally agree, when I was 5 I crossed the road where I shouldn't have and was hit by a pushbike, my parent's paid for the riders bike damages without question. Same story here, the other party being the girl was in the wrong, if anything the school could possibly be deemed at fault. In Australia, kids that age are taken to the place to cross and supervised. There is an area to cross, flagged and a crossing guard goes out first with a sign to stop the traffic before the kids cross. The school did not take enough precautions to prevent this from happening.
Yet she countersued for her brat kid crossing where she shouldn't and t-bone a moving vehicle. Kid has an attitude if you see at the end when she talks. She won't learn with a mother like that.
@@lisaparrey1343 Obviously, JJ wouldn't let the cross guard talk anymore when he wanted to but you could tell that the kid was taken to the cross area but didn't listen and ran out where she wanted.