Case in question. Two former co-workers arguing over (if I recall correctly) defendant slandering plaintiff on Facebook, plaintiff assaulting defendant. There is no definitive evidence either way, and Judge Judy is just about to dismiss both of them when she asks the defendant if she has a lawsuit against the doctor (dentist) that they both formerly worked for. When the defendant answers “Yes,” Judge Judy summarily finds for the plaintiff in the amount of $5000 (the maximum allowed by this show).
What happened here? One of the comments says that the plaintiff lied about leaving voluntarily, and Judge Judy awarded the $5000 to the plaintiff because the defendant is a big fat liar - is it that simple?
Ah, because Judge Judy’s decisions seem to be based entirely by shoehorning the case into her personal views, and then making an arbitrary declaration based on said views?
–
Well, and the part where she berates the loser on what she imagines they might have been thinking while doing what she assumes they did, but that’s not germane.
I saw that same episode - I think that she was having trouble siding one way or another because neither side had much proof, but Judy felt that the plaintive was more believable.
She took the defendant’s lawsuit as proof of her sneakiness and hit her with the judgment.
Remember that episodes are edited quite a bit for time, and she has a lot more information than the viewers get to see.
What were the facebook comments that the plaintiff claims were slander? If they were in regard to the fact that she was suing the dentist Judge Judy may have determined that they weren’t slander at all but were factual statements which would have meant that she would find for the defendant.
I was actually pretty bummed for the plaintiff because I thought she was obviously correct and I actually did a fist-pumping ‘YES!’ type thing when Judy changed the verdict.
It’s not necessarily inappropriate – in the absence of a jury, the judge is the trier of fact. That is, she decides who is telling the truth and who isn’t. So if that indicated to her that the defendant was untrustworthy, then she could have rightly found for the plaintiff, even if there was little documentary evidence in front of her.
From the couple episodes I’ve watched, I don’t think she’s a great judge, but from the information given, this doesn’t sound like it’s necessarily poor work on her part.
Having seen the episode a couple of times, the defendant kept evading answering the questions directly. She even said that she harbored no ill will against the dentist and that she quit voluntarily. Judy was on the fence and so she dismissed the case. But then it occurred Judge Judy to asked if the defendant was suing the dentist…
I remember that case and wondered myself. I suspect that Judge Judy found that the defendant had misrepresented something. I don’t recall now, but I believe the defendent claimed to have left the job voluntarily, but then revealed that she was suing the dentist. She was repulsive anyway, I was happy about the result.
ETA: ouryL presented the part about leaving and the suit already.
Well, remember that Judge Judy is not legally a judge (although I believe she used to be). She’s an arbitrator. Technically, two parties can sign a contract agreeing to abide by the judgement of an arbitrator. However, I believe it’s usually irrelevant on the Judge Judy show, because the show pays people any money Judge Judy awards, not the losing party.
I saw the same show, but was doing something in the kitchen so wasn’t paying full attention. I caught the part where she was dismissing the case and then the last question as she was getting up, then making the judgement in favor of the plaintiff. I was like, “WTF just happened?” So thanks for bringing it up here, I never would have found out!
This came up in another thread awhile ago, and here’s what I posted about it then:
I suspect I know what changed the judge’s mind (she originally ruled for the defendant then changed her mind after the defendant confirmed she was suing their employer).
The plaintiff alleged that the defendant had falsely accused her of assault. The defendant brought photos of her injuries. The plaintiff insisted she never touched the defendant, but Judy said it wasn’t reasonable to think that the defendant would do that to herself. However when the defendant confirmed that she was suing her employer, it seemed more likely that she would have injured herself to bolster her claim (taking into account her general demeanor and testimony).
I did some fact checking, basically in Angel McDaniel’s case she was suing for workers compensation. This website was really informative. Contact Support
You can only sue for worker’s compensation if you claim that the workplace incident was an accident. If the workplace incident wasn’t an accident, as she claims on the show, then she would sue the person who caused the accident. Basically, she can’t sue two people for the same incident.
Also, I found out who the doc was, relatively good looking man. I think that (had the other young lady and this doctor had been having an affair, which I suspect may have been the case) I think that jealousy on the part of Angel McDaniel might have been the true culprit.
Since this thread was revived and Joseph Wapner just passed, I want to point out what I liked about The People’s Court when Judge Wapner was presiding. For one thing, he wasn’t rude and dismissive as Judge Judy is most of the time. And he would take the time to explain the legalities of the decision. For example, it’s because of him that I know that for a contract to be valid, there has to be an offer, acceptance and consideration.
