Judge Judy – Defendants Silent On Charger Fire
Plantiff is suing her babysitter and her boyfriend for damage to an appartment where a battery charger caused a fire. Judge Judy thinks its ridiculous added to the fact the Plantiff let her house insurance lapse.
sestren2503 posted: 15 Aug at 8:25 am
The Plaintiff should have brought the charging instructions with her to court. I also fly RC helis as well as drive RC cars and if that’s a LIPO battery then the instructions very specifically say exactly what she is saying. “Do not leave on charge unattended.” LIPO batteries are not simply batteries. They actually have circuit boards in them that help with equal distribution of the charge and if improperly charged “on carpet. charge too long, etc etc” they overheat.
SilkroadBot2 posted: 15 Aug at 8:27 am
@normalil That’s the law, she applied the law, nothing more.
garrenn posted: 15 Aug at 9:04 am
It’s not her it’s the law.
monsterchiz posted: 15 Aug at 9:23 am
this is the worst judegement I ever see from JJ, shame on her.
twistedfool420 posted: 15 Aug at 10:16 am
shes such a dumbass (the mother i mean)
JokersSerious posted: 15 Aug at 10:25 am
fuck the plaintiff. She’s just pissed at the irony of letting her insurance lapse days before a fire destroys her place.
Good. Let that be a lesson to the bitch. Trying to use the guy sitting for her spoiled brat as a scapegoat.
Even if she was smart enough to bring the instructions for the battery, bursting into flames the minute it’s plugged in = defective. Not like the kid held a lighter under it. Even if he was negligent, shouldn’t she be suing for endangerment instead of material crap?
normalil posted: 15 Aug at 10:47 am
Not often I disagree with JJ, but I wish she was more sympathetic to the plaintiff in this case.
ngodoubt posted: 15 Aug at 11:11 am
The mom is so ignorant, stupid and so damn oblivious to the situation.. She’s just quick to point the finger and blame someone. Stupid bitch! Sue the battery company you hoe.
pndeanify posted: 15 Aug at 11:29 am
I love Judge Judy, but I kind of wish she had found against these two, or that the plaintiff had researched her case more thoroughly. I think that defendant had some nerve to call the five-year-old a brat after what the unfortunate grandmother has been through. I guess that’s youth for you…
JR81CCS posted: 15 Aug at 12:15 pm
but it is true that the defendant’s didn’t even say a word… did they already know about the result of the trial?
FallenAngelIII posted: 15 Aug at 12:17 pm
Skimming the Wikipedia page for Li-Po, there is no mention made of how Li-Po batteries require supervision by their nature. I doubt they REQUIRE supervision. Some supervision may be RECOMMENDED by the manufacturers to cover their own behinds, however.
redpoint5 posted: 15 Aug at 12:43 pm
You are correct that the woman did not provide sufficient evidence, otherwise she would have won the case. However, Judy has allowed a plaintiff more time to acquire evidence in past cases where it was possible to substantiate a claim. Judy wasn’t interested finding out if the plaintiff had a legitimate argument in this case.
Your cell phone does not use lithium-polymer batteries and requires no supervision. Devices that use Li-Po batteries caution about possible fire and require supervision.
FreeInquisition posted: 15 Aug at 1:16 pm
That guy has been floating around asking stupid shit, just ignore the weirdo
FallenAngelIII posted: 15 Aug at 1:17 pm
I don’t enjoy communicating with people who either look down on women or feminine men or at least ascribe certain values to them and makes quasi-disparaging remarks regarding the matters. Especially not when the communication is basically completely irrelevant baloney discussions that have nothing to do with the videos I’m commenting on. And the “dilemma” is a no-brainer.
nightshot103 posted: 15 Aug at 1:47 pm
FallenAngellll, there are two roommates sharing a unit. Each has their own bedrooms. One of the roommates wants to put a lock on her bedroom because she doesn’t know the other roommate.
Tell me how you would handle this.
FallenAngelIII posted: 15 Aug at 2:40 pm
And you draw this conclusion because I didn’t answer your irrelevant question without questioning it first? Also, even if I were, this would matter how? How very mature of you.
nightshot103 posted: 15 Aug at 3:33 pm
You must be a feminine man.
FallenAngelIII posted: 15 Aug at 4:29 pm
I must be a man who does not take baloney from people.
nightshot103 posted: 15 Aug at 4:38 pm
You must be a girl.
FallenAngelIII posted: 15 Aug at 5:32 pm
Because I didn’t really understand why I was being asked such a seemingly random and irrelevant question.
nightshot103 posted: 15 Aug at 6:15 pm
I don’t know why it took you so long just to give me that answer. lol.
That’s all I wanted to hear.
FallenAngelIII posted: 15 Aug at 6:35 pm
Then ,it depends on several things:
What is their contract in case of (for instance) a fire? Was the fire the tenant’s fault or someone else’s? Assuming that the answer is “The tenant is to pay”, then it goes on the tenant’s insurance. And?
nightshot103 posted: 15 Aug at 6:54 pm
FallenAngellll, I know you don’t have the “legal” asnwer. I’m asking for your reasoning. With what you know, I’m asking for your “opinion” on the matter.
I’m not asking you to google and do the research. I want to see how you think.
FallenAngelIII posted: 15 Aug at 7:52 pm
I’m not dancing around your question, I questioning what possible relevance it could have to this case. I don’t know the answer (legally) to that question. So my answer would be “I don’t know”. However, I also want to add “And why are you asking me this in response to a comment about a case which has nothing to do with these things?”.
nightshot103 posted: 15 Aug at 7:57 pm
FallenAngellll, you’re trying to dance around my question.
I want to know your conclusion — I want to know if the tenant insurance would cover it or would the landlord insurance cover it or other arrangements would apply.
Let me know your analysis.
Thanks.