Post by Gubbio on May 1, 2018 22:16:10 GMT
@doggiedaddy
I was listening to this case from the other room, so I didn't get the part about the crossing guard.
However, I agree with you. Again Judy changes her "logic" to fit her ruling.
In the past, when anyone runs into a car with a bike or a skateboard, Judy rules for the one with the damages.
So, this girl RAN INTO THE CAR with her body -- and caused damage. Explain to me the difference.
It's really irrelevant what would have happened if the child was killed. That had nothing to do with the case. That's Judy muddling up the facts of the case -- to justify her ruling.
The old bag should retire.
The case that really upset me yesterday (4/30/18) was the little girl who ran into the side of the plaintiff's car and damaged her mirror. JJ sided with the kid and wouldn't award the plaintiff any damages to repair her mirror.
I was listening to this case from the other room, so I didn't get the part about the crossing guard.
However, I agree with you. Again Judy changes her "logic" to fit her ruling.
In the past, when anyone runs into a car with a bike or a skateboard, Judy rules for the one with the damages.
So, this girl RAN INTO THE CAR with her body -- and caused damage. Explain to me the difference.
It's really irrelevant what would have happened if the child was killed. That had nothing to do with the case. That's Judy muddling up the facts of the case -- to justify her ruling.
The old bag should retire.