Yes! Off leash is always in the wrong. No control of animals, idiocy. Plaintiff was damn lucky she paid over half the vet bills, got flipping greedy and wanted more😵💫
The fact that she is suing for additional bills she might not even have to pay is appalling! Especially after finding out her dog was off leash and the defendant already paid over $5,000. Smh
I’m not taking up for the plaintiff because I think she is greedy; however, her little Yorkie may need to see an ophthalmologist and a neurologist since the damage was pretty significant. My dog, who has heart disease, sees a cardiologist every six months, and one of my other dogs goes to physical therapy every other day. A pet owner will do anything to get and keep their pet healthy, but the plaintiff needs to take responsibility for her dog getting attacked and pay the rest of the vet bills herself.
@Ladywolf2263 when you own small dogs and don't have then on a leash either, I'm not trusting any big dog near my little dog. I don't care how friendly someone says their dog is. My dog would be in my arms. The plaintiff is looking for permanent care for something that was partially her fault too.
Chloe is adorable, but her Mom needs to accept that she is partly responsible by not leashing and even picking her up just in case the other dog wasn't friendly. This is the first People's Court case of a dog attack that a pitbull wasn't involved!
I was thinking that I don't think I've seen a non-pitbull attack case until this one! Normally it is a pit that attacks or that's involved - this one had NONE WHATSOEVER. :o The lab wasn't even a pit mix! I just found that interesting, tbh.
It’s not the first. There’s approximately 6-7 in its history that didn’t involve a pit bull… And for a defendant to pay before going to court! And OVER the amount!
She's lucky defendant didnt countersue for reimbursement. "I have a simple life" implies she thinks the defendant has $. Can't stand this type of entitled New Yorker.
The judge should of tallied up the original bill price & had the plaintiffs reimburse that lady her money . The defendant paid more than half when she didn’t have to .
The Plaintiff should have immediately picked up poor Chloe. She could have avoided the whole thing, had she used her brain. Friendly or not, Chloe is tiny and dogs can snap in a second. It's technically more the Plaintiff's fault than the Defendants.
Well the dog looked fine in the photo when it was out being walked a couple of days before the case. A lot of this was speculative on the plaintiffs part. The dog is not totally blind but may be in one eye and it may have some brain damage, but brains can heal depending on where the damage is and how extensive it was. That's why she was given medication and treatment to counter it.
19:05 The plaintiff’s excuse for why the other dog owner should pay more was because her “ life is simple”. In other words she feels the other lady probably has more money than her, so she should pay. Ridiculous!
That dog AND it's owner are messed up, The Defendats couldn't have been nicer and the Plaintiff complains that they were a TAG team???? WTF, only one of the sisters talked about what happened because the other sister wasn't there. I think the Plaintiff isn't a very nice person and thinks that just because her dog is small that she doesn't have to follow the leash rules. Put the leash on BEFORE you set the dog ON THE ground, woman !!!! PERIOD !!!! like Judge Judy would say. 💙 😁💙
OMG, the plaintiff did not care about the dogs not getting along till there was the dog fight. Never allow a teacup dog near a reactive or strange dog. Dog fights will happen. So both parties are at fault here. And both dogs are to be leashed at all times in publc.
According to the law the plaintiff was the one at fault as her dog wasn't on a lead. It was kind of the defendant to pay what she paid but it really should have only been half at most. So many people on these court shows assume that if they or their animal gets hurt it must be the fault of the other party, especially if the other party weren't injured, but the law doesn't work like that.
In life sometimes there is more important things then money and in this case the defendant showed her beautiful and gentle carector. She appeared so sincere and loving and that's worth something. I'm so happy she won this case and she didn't even countersue
The fact that the defendant paid the money so fast and didn’t even counter sue for full or half the money back show she’s a good person ! The plaintiff is greedy
Really? Remember these animals are family members. We paid over 3k to save my dog in emergency surgery which didn't take, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
I do. But I would not spend that kind of $ on an animal. I think these vets are scammers with this price they charge and then you have to go into debt.
What a sucker she outright didn't need to pay for all the vet bills including the "future" bills we have zero certainty is nessecarry. If your dogs off leash and something happens it's your responsibility. Wish the judge would have made that clear!!! If the defendant didn't jump immediately to oh I'll pay because she felt bad about the situation she would have paid at most half of the damages!! I disagree with the entire approach to this, the courts consider dogs as a piece of property and yet when damaged you're not receiving the amount it would cost to replace them with the deprecated value in mind. Why...?? Either they are property and you have a duty to minimize your losses or its not property can't be both!! I think people would choose less vet visits if they knew the value was all they would get in court.
She wasn't a sucker her sister forgot to mention the other dog wasn't on a lead and she had seen the photos and thought she must be liable. So she did what a responsible adult would do in that situation. I would be a bit annoyed with my sibling if I was her but that's another matter.
So she should NOT have been given a penny even before court! Her dog was NOT on a leash and the other dogs WERE!! This women is shifting responsibility from herself to this other women with dogs on a leash!!
I agree her dog should have been on a leash. But please tell me how that would have prevented the other dog from attacking her. That dog was leashed but obviously not under control because it attacked the little dog. I’m having a hard time excusing the dog attack because the one who was attacked didn’t have leash on.
Lady just needed to add possible damages to her dog's outfits and she would've covered everything in this suit! I know some people probably went that far in cases like this. A mini rant, feel free to ignore, because I just wanted to add: Folks, I will never understand why you'd dress your dog like a human as it is. They clearly aren't meant to wear dresses, shirts, and the like from what I've seen of them wearing shoes (remember when they walk in those shoes and have that odd jiggle? Yeah). Plus when you cover their front feet, you're kinda making them unable to defend themselves with them. They may not have retractable claws like a cat, but they do help protect the dog from preditors and helps them hunt. If you wanna play dressup, find a Barbie doll or something... Dogs only require a collar with a form of ID, not a sweater.
I totally agree except for dog coats in winter weather if the dog is small or low to the ground. There are dog boots that are to protect their feet, like with dogs that search through rubble for survivors, but an average dog doesn't need them! I hate seeing animals dressed up like dolls, it's weird. People who do that are not normal.
Besides the “whose fault is it”…my aunt has a corgi and it is the MOST violent dog I have ever met. He bites my aunt, her kids, my grandparents, he can’t be around my mothers dog (husky and bernedoodle) because he has tried to ATTACK the big dogs, he barks constantly and everyone and everything and has to be kept separate from everyone/everything. Corgis might be cute but man they are the aggressive and territorial as hell.
Omg is that really necessary ? Who really cares .In the scheme of things is it really important ?.Children are dying of disease, hunger , homocide .War has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last year .It just doesnt pass t.he smell test . I think you need to reuvalulate what is important. Dont come at me because I dont care what you think of my comment .It is my opinion .You dont have to agree with it ,but at least it isnt assinine like your comment
Poor baby. Both parties are responsible. You don't let an unknown dog approach your dog. I have never taken my dogs outside of my home without a leash nor allowed any dog to approach my dogs.
Defendant strikes me as a reasonable person who wants to do right and the Plaintiff comes across as just greedy, trying to drain her dry if allowed to.
The corgi probably didn’t recognize the teacup Yorkie as a dog, prob thought it was some kind of adorable little rodent. (And I have an adorable Yorkie rodent also)
Not sure if anyone mentioned it but her dog is 11yrs old. She probably already has health issues so she might be trying to be slick and include that in her lawsuit.
First, it was due to her and her daughter’s negligence for their yorkie’s injury, they didn’t have her on a leash and even when they saw the the other two dogs approaching they didn’t even bother to take precautions to pick up their tiny dog smh. Second, The plaintiff is only trying to get as much money as she can for this case. She claims and is accepting all these procedures that aren’t necessary or required for her doggy. If it were judge Judy she would’ve gotten an earful and the case would’ve end it as soon as she hears that the dog was not on a leash
I was blessed to have the 64 color Crayola box of crayons with the built in sharpener!!! 😂 But, I was the kid that wanted the 96 color Crayola box!!😅 I never did get that one!! 😭😭😭
In addition to the poor dog's injury, the plaintiff decides to dress her in that ridiculous outfit. Glad the little dog is doing well, but plaintiff isn't taking responsibility for her part.
![Felix "Unfair" | [Stray Kids : SKZ-PLAYER]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Oswujxm2Ag0/mqdefault.jpg)
Somebody needs to accept responsibility for this video title.
😂 I know, right!
I just laughed 😂
I just spit my water out 😂
They said let me sound it out lmao 😂
The Plaintiff is a yarn spinner for sure.
wow the audacity of the plaintiff!
Too bad the defendant didn’t counter sue to get her money back.
Yes!
Off leash is always in the wrong. No control of animals,
idiocy.
Plaintiff was damn lucky she paid over half the vet bills, got flipping greedy and wanted more😵💫
She still can, and I hope she does!
Exactly
@@lyndawhite5171not even greedy, ignorance and entitlement she knew from the beginning she was gonna milk this!
@@lyndawhite5171 I'm near certain that those bills were never paid but the upkeep of the owner was
"At my age I should do whatever I want" She's a legend! 😂
No. She says that. But rules a judgment for people who also do what they want, which got them before her. IRONIC & an oxymoron!
@@RileyCullen1 Lol, context my friend.
SHES DONE THAT HER WHOLE LIFE IM SURE....
The fact that she is suing for additional bills she might not even have to pay is appalling! Especially after finding out her dog was off leash and the defendant already paid over $5,000. Smh
And lol how matter of fact she was about "yes my dog was truly unleashed" 😂
Defendant should have counter sued
When you know there is maintenance to come, that's normal. You don't have to wait 3,4,5 years for all the bills to come in. Same with people.
I know. She’s being ridiculous.
especially the dental cleaning!
Plaintiff looking for a windfall. No way she’s going to take her dog to opthomologist or neurologists . She is an opportunist. SHAME ON HER .
I’m not taking up for the plaintiff because I think she is greedy; however, her little Yorkie may need to see an ophthalmologist and a neurologist since the damage was pretty significant. My dog, who has heart disease, sees a cardiologist every six months, and one of my other dogs goes to physical therapy every other day. A pet owner will do anything to get and keep their pet healthy, but the plaintiff needs to take responsibility for her dog getting attacked and pay the rest of the vet bills herself.
She's ridiculous, she already paid over 5000.00. Geez. Take on something yourself. ew
Ikr. Then at the end she said they need to take responsibility! WHAT?’ THEY DID ALREADY!! Lmao. Nh is just being greedy, per usual.
Fair verdict plaintiff is ridiculous
She was only trying to collect money, she didn’t even have proof where the vet says the doggy is going to require future surgeries etc.
You CANNOT SUE for future expenses. Case dismissed.
The plantiff is just greedy! You already received 5,000 lady be grateful for that....smh
She just wants money and I bet has no care to use it on the DOG.
major money grab by a greedy plaintiff.. just lovely defendants.. they took immediate, total, responsibility..
5,400
You don’t know that. Her issue isn’t greed it’s ignorance of the law
The defendant is a gem and so well spoken. She handled this so well. The plaintiff is greedy and lacks class!
The plantiff was being so greedy. The defendants did accept responsibility...something a lot of people don't do. She should have been thankful.
I agree!
Plaintiff just being greedy at this point like lady she paid more than half you better be lucky she did that take it and shut up!
And that was a LOT. You see so many shows where they won't even pay 100 dollar vet bill. Smh
Exactly!! I was shocked at how much she paid already. Plaintiff is on bs
The defendants sister hair is giving 90’s updo, and looks amazing!!
I just told my husband “I kinda love her big hair!”
Meryl streep vibes 😍
Patsy Stone - in the best way possible!
The sister just looks nuts
“Absolutely Fabulous “
Wow. Lady got greedy.
The defendant honestly seems like a sweet, caring person. I wish her the best!
So glad I don’t have animal responsabiity
😂😂
😂
😂😂
😂
💀💀
Plantiffs is just racking up bills unnecessary . Over $10000 is ridiculous. This is not a windfull.
Windfall
And unnecessarily. Eh, responsability, windfull...
Lol I can't even type those without my autocorrect kicking in lol
Ok you must not know how expensive vet bills can be. And the other owner should have kept her dog away from the smaller dog.
@Ladywolf2263 when you own small dogs and don't have then on a leash either, I'm not trusting any big dog near my little dog. I don't care how friendly someone says their dog is. My dog would be in my arms. The plaintiff is looking for permanent care for something that was partially her fault too.
The plaintiff should have picked her dog up and put the leash on. She’s so entitled
I believe the defendant. She paid $5400 up front without knowing all the facts. she even financed it!!!!.
Agree. I think maybe the defendant had some responsibility but she shouldn’t pay anymore than she already has.
Dog owner’s like the plaintiff shouldn’t be allowed to have a dog!!
Great point!
Did anyone else notice in the title "Responsabiity"?
Yep, should have been “Responsibility”. 😄
Typos happen
Right away lol
@Charbear25 Sure, if you're illiterate and your editors are illiterate 🙄
They are slipping!
This is called being Greedy!!!😵💫🙄
I still don't understand people bringing their dogs into court, like it's gonna score sympathy points....
Ha! 😂
Plaintiff needs to be grateful the defendant didn't sue for returns of part of her payment.
If your dog is off the leash...you are responsible.
Chloe is adorable, but her Mom needs to accept that she is partly responsible by not leashing and even picking her up just in case the other dog wasn't friendly. This is the first People's Court case of a dog attack that a pitbull wasn't involved!
I was thinking that I don't think I've seen a non-pitbull attack case until this one! Normally it is a pit that attacks or that's involved - this one had NONE WHATSOEVER. :o The lab wasn't even a pit mix! I just found that interesting, tbh.
Little dogs like Chloe can be just as vicious as a big dog!!
Actually more so@GrampiesCorner . I have seen more than once small dogs antagonize or bite bigger dogs. Certain breeds are biters
It’s not the first. There’s approximately 6-7 in its history that didn’t involve a pit bull…
And for a defendant to pay before going to court! And OVER the amount!
She's lucky defendant didnt countersue for reimbursement. "I have a simple life" implies she thinks the defendant has $. Can't stand this type of entitled New Yorker.
I’m not a pet person but that dog is ADORABLE!
Defendant is better than me because I would’ve sued for some of my money back. 50/50 liability
The judge should of tallied up the original bill price & had the plaintiffs reimburse that lady her money . The defendant paid more than half when she didn’t have to .
The judge got this one right .
The Plaintiff should have immediately picked up poor Chloe. She could have avoided the whole thing, had she used her brain. Friendly or not, Chloe is tiny and dogs can snap in a second. It's technically more the Plaintiff's fault than the Defendants.
The defendant should have gotten some money returned.
No
yes..! could hav definitely gotten most of her $5K back.. plaintiff had her dog off leash..
defendant can still sue for the return of her $$..!
Love the defendents dress. Colors fit her very well
The defendant is solid human. I wouldn’t have paid a damn penny.
😂😂😂 she’s lucky they didn’t counter for the return of their funds
Seriously 😂😂😂
Why??
@@kweilynross2491 Why what? Why not pay? Because when two dogs go to war...:) It's always the fault of the non leashed animal.
@@Gunnerb52
Because that is a small ass dog!!!
The judge made the right decision.
Why would you put a teacup on the ground to put the leash on when you can hold it (as she walked in to court holding it)and easily put the leash on ?!
She just being greedy PERIOD
I love animals but over $10,000 on bills & the dog still can’t see & has brain damage??! Is that fair to the dog?
It's not. It's sad but it's no life for that dog to live.
Well the dog looked fine in the photo when it was out being walked a couple of days before the case. A lot of this was speculative on the plaintiffs part. The dog is not totally blind but may be in one eye and it may have some brain damage, but brains can heal depending on where the damage is and how extensive it was. That's why she was given medication and treatment to counter it.
Imagine if it was the other way around-the defendant wouldn’t have received a penny from the plaintiff.
It pisses me off when people aren't more responsible with their pets.
19:05 The plaintiff’s excuse for why the other dog owner should pay more was because her “ life is simple”. In other words she feels the other lady probably has more money than her, so she should pay. Ridiculous!
That dog AND it's owner are messed up,
The Defendats couldn't have been nicer and the Plaintiff complains that they were a TAG team???? WTF, only one of the sisters talked about what happened because the other sister wasn't there. I think the Plaintiff isn't a very nice person and thinks that just because her dog is small that she doesn't have to follow the leash rules. Put the leash on BEFORE you set the dog ON THE ground, woman !!!! PERIOD !!!! like Judge Judy would say. 💙 😁💙
Pick up her small dog, since she saw them coming.
OMG, the plaintiff did not care about the dogs not getting along till there was the dog fight. Never allow a teacup dog near a reactive or strange dog. Dog fights will happen. So both parties are at fault here. And both dogs are to be leashed at all times in publc.
The defendants dogs were leashed..
No both parties aren’t at fault
According to the law the plaintiff was the one at fault as her dog wasn't on a lead. It was kind of the defendant to pay what she paid but it really should have only been half at most. So many people on these court shows assume that if they or their animal gets hurt it must be the fault of the other party, especially if the other party weren't injured, but the law doesn't work like that.
I always snapped the leash on before I unhooked the seat belt.
Plaintiff first problem YOUR DOG IS OFF LEASH. YOUR PROBLEM YOUR FAULT.
typical rules don't apply to me. Your dog needs to be on a leash.
Lucky those ladies didn't counter sue.
the plaintiff wants free stuff. give me a break lady. Put your dog on a leash.
The defendant was more than generous and seems remorseful. Plantiff just wants that money.
Chloe is adorable 🥰
In life sometimes there is more important things then money and in this case the defendant showed her beautiful and gentle carector. She appeared so sincere and loving and that's worth something. I'm so happy she won this case and she didn't even countersue
The plaintiff is embarrassing, trying to milk this for as much as she can get
Grow up, take accountability, and stop being an opportunist, ridiculous.
ABSOLUTELY UNBELIEVABLE 😮
The fact that the defendant paid the money so fast and didn’t even counter sue for full or half the money back show she’s a good person ! The plaintiff is greedy
Airplane!! ✈️ Crayola with sharpener!! 🖍️ 😂😂😂😂 I love these two ❤❤❤
Someone buy that man a box of crayons
The lady in the white is a beautiful spirit. You deserve A lot ✨🪄 the defendant has COMPREHENSION ISSUES !! Smh .
I think you mean the greedy plaintiff has comprehension issues as she can't seem to accept it was really all her fault.
IF GREEDY WAS A PERSON IT'D BE THE PLAINTIFF
NO LEASH
The small dog owner was 100% at fault. A hawk could fly down and grab that tiny dog, NEVER PUT A SMALL DOG DOWN BY ITSELF.
She should never have paid her $5000!
I would never spend that kind of $ on an animal. Good grief
Seriously?? I hope you don’t Own any pets
Really? Remember these animals are family members. We paid over 3k to save my dog in emergency surgery which didn't take, but I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
I’ve absolutely LOVED my pets, but there are limits, unless one has unlimited funds. I agree. Good grief!!!
@@lexilexx545right? I would feel bad for the pet. Animals are family. Period.
I do. But I would not spend that kind of $ on an animal. I think these vets are scammers with this price they charge and then you have to go into debt.
What a sucker she outright didn't need to pay for all the vet bills including the "future" bills we have zero certainty is nessecarry. If your dogs off leash and something happens it's your responsibility. Wish the judge would have made that clear!!! If the defendant didn't jump immediately to oh I'll pay because she felt bad about the situation she would have paid at most half of the damages!! I disagree with the entire approach to this, the courts consider dogs as a piece of property and yet when damaged you're not receiving the amount it would cost to replace them with the deprecated value in mind. Why...?? Either they are property and you have a duty to minimize your losses or its not property can't be both!! I think people would choose less vet visits if they knew the value was all they would get in court.
If your pets value is monetary based you should not have a pet.
Why was it necessary to call her a suckered not nice she did what she thought was right
She wasn't a sucker her sister forgot to mention the other dog wasn't on a lead and she had seen the photos and thought she must be liable. So she did what a responsible adult would do in that situation. I would be a bit annoyed with my sibling if I was her but that's another matter.
At least she paid $5400! I would've left her alone!
So she should NOT have been given a penny even before court! Her dog was NOT on a leash and the other dogs WERE!! This women is shifting responsibility from herself to this other women with dogs on a leash!!
I agree her dog should have been on a leash. But please tell me how that would have prevented the other dog from attacking her. That dog was leashed but obviously not under control because it attacked the little dog. I’m having a hard time excusing the dog attack because the one who was attacked didn’t have leash on.
Lady just needed to add possible damages to her dog's outfits and she would've covered everything in this suit!
I know some people probably went that far in cases like this.
A mini rant, feel free to ignore, because I just wanted to add:
Folks, I will never understand why you'd dress your dog like a human as it is. They clearly aren't meant to wear dresses, shirts, and the like from what I've seen of them wearing shoes (remember when they walk in those shoes and have that odd jiggle? Yeah). Plus when you cover their front feet, you're kinda making them unable to defend themselves with them. They may not have retractable claws like a cat, but they do help protect the dog from preditors and helps them hunt. If you wanna play dressup, find a Barbie doll or something...
Dogs only require a collar with a form of ID, not a sweater.
I agree!
I totally agree except for dog coats in winter weather if the dog is small or low to the ground. There are dog boots that are to protect their feet, like with dogs that search through rubble for survivors, but an average dog doesn't need them! I hate seeing animals dressed up like dolls, it's weird. People who do that are not normal.
The plaintiff is dishonest, lacks character and accountability. The exact opposite of the defendants.
👀 The title. 😂 Also, can’t wait for the court show warriors to pop out and state, “judge blahblah would have done it this way!” 😂😂😂😂😂
Besides the “whose fault is it”…my aunt has a corgi and it is the MOST violent dog I have ever met. He bites my aunt, her kids, my grandparents, he can’t be around my mothers dog (husky and bernedoodle) because he has tried to ATTACK the big dogs, he barks constantly and everyone and everything and has to be kept separate from everyone/everything. Corgis might be cute but man they are the aggressive and territorial as hell.
The plaintiff is called “Black Sparrow” from pirates of the Caribbean! The defendant was late for court so she wore her Christmas table cloth!
You mean the colored woman with the ludicrously ridiculous head dress.
Responsabiity , it is surprising that an individual cannot use auto-correct. Additionally, the plaintiff’s pronunciation of words is incorrect.
Omg is that really necessary ? Who really cares .In the scheme of things is it really important ?.Children are dying of disease, hunger , homocide .War has killed hundreds of thousands of people in the last year .It just doesnt pass t.he smell test . I think you need to reuvalulate what is important. Dont come at me because I dont care what you think of my comment .It is my opinion .You dont have to agree with it ,but at least it isnt assinine like your comment
So many people in the comments also seem unable to use autocorrect.
Drives me nuts in these cases when soooo many people say 'arks' instead of 'ask'.
SPELLING PLEASE!!!!
Responsibility 💥💥💥 Plaintiff classless and basically looking for a windfall 🥲. Defendant was graceful, went up and beyond.Kudos Defendant ❤
The plaintiff got greedy!! And the defendant did take responsibility!
Poor baby. Both parties are responsible. You don't let an unknown dog approach your dog.
I have never taken my dogs outside of my home without a leash nor allowed any dog to approach my dogs.
I love JM’s husband. He’s so down to earth
The moment she admitted her dog was off leash her goose was cooked.
all of that money for a 100 dollar dog. now tell me again how animals are overrated. it's no way in hell i would spend that much on a dog.
Defendant strikes me as a reasonable person who wants to do right and the Plaintiff comes across as just greedy, trying to drain her dry if allowed to.
I would’ve not paid one penny towards that fat bill. Her dog was off the leash her dogs at fault
Plaintiff is acting like a professional grifter.
The corgi probably didn’t recognize the teacup Yorkie as a dog, prob thought it was some kind of adorable little rodent. (And I have an adorable Yorkie rodent also)
I would never pay that much to fix a dog
I can’t believe the defendant paid any money at all without going to court first! What a nice lady!
I am glad that you didn't get any more money!👍👍👍👍👍👍👍👍
The nerve of the plaintiff. She is so wrong and obviously needs to learn a hard lesson about owning a dog. The poor defendant looked so sad.
The judge gets on my nerves for over talking someone.
She gets on my nerves more when she takes forever on cases that could be handle in less than 10 minutes.
So don’t watch her
@@Mary_Lee2395it a show ma am they have to get entertainment she gets paid for that
Not sure if anyone mentioned it but her dog is 11yrs old. She probably already has health issues so she might be trying to be slick and include that in her lawsuit.
😂😂😂 The title is spot on for the plaintiff. The deal is this...... BOTH DOGS WERE OUT OF CONTROL...
She's lucky the lady paid anything
9:20 It's called a RETAINING WALL. Or a decorative feature wall.
Plaintiff is greedy and ridiculous. Dogs off leash are a big NO
First, it was due to her and her daughter’s negligence for their yorkie’s injury, they didn’t have her on a leash and even when they saw the the other two dogs approaching they didn’t even bother to take precautions to pick up their tiny dog smh. Second, The plaintiff is only trying to get as much money as she can for this case. She claims and is accepting all these procedures that aren’t necessary or required for her doggy. If it were judge Judy she would’ve gotten an earful and the case would’ve end it as soon as she hears that the dog was not on a leash
I just cannot stand people who take their dogs out without a leash
To think she was trying to get her to basically pay for her dog for life is laughable
That whole story about bending down to put a leash on was BS. The little dog doesn't even have a leash in court🤦
“I really wanna pet Chloe, I can’t stand it anymore”….😂 I LOVE judge Milian so much.
I was blessed to have the 64 color Crayola box of crayons with the built in sharpener!!! 😂 But, I was the kid that wanted the 96 color Crayola box!!😅 I never did get that one!! 😭😭😭
Not the sound insensitive but it would be cheaper to buy her another dog
Thinking the same. Not paying medical bills in excess of the cost of the dog. Not happening
My dogs NEVER come out of my car without their leashes being on. Even in my driveway. She could have scooped that dog up when she saw 2 dogs coming.
" I want the 64 color crayola box with the sharpener " I now see why hes a keeper 😂
The plaintiff sounds ridiculous.
In addition to the poor dog's injury, the plaintiff decides to dress her in that ridiculous outfit. Glad the little dog is doing well, but plaintiff isn't taking responsibility for her part.
Who’s gonna take responsibility for the misspelling of “responsibility” in this title?
😂😂😂
The plaintiff is nothing more than a greedy money grabber. Shame shame shame. Shows her class.