Weird Judge Judy case. You decide.

In My Humble Opinion
1

The Plaintiff: Monique, single mother of two.

The Defendant: Linda, the apartment manager.

The case: Monique is suing Linda for several thousand dollars in medical bills, pain and suffering, and security deposit.

Linda’s building had a strange security system. Any vehicle could get in to the building’s parking lot, but a gate prevented vehicles from leaving. To open the gate, you needed either a passcode or a clicker. The clicker cost $25. Only the fire department had a passcode.

Since Monique didn’t have a car, she didn’t bother to buy a clicker.

One night, at about 4am, Monique’s 2-year-old daughter had a siezure. A fire truck and an ambulance showed up. The firetruck then left, using the passcode. The ambulance, with the daughter inside, couldn’t get out. The paramedics had to ring tenents’ doorbells to find someone with a clicker.

The next day, Monique told Linda to fix it so that ambulances could get out. She didn’t buy a clicker.

A month later, Monique had a severe asthma attack. An ambulance showed up to get her, and couldn’t get out for several hours. Monique spent 3 days in the hospital.

Shortly after that, Linda decided she’d had enough of Monique, and evicted her with three days notice. For two months, Monique lived there rent-free before moving. Linda kept the security deposit as rent.

What damages, if any, would you award?

2

What a weird and ‘liability inducing’ security system.

What about the police? Could they get out?

3

Oh, and if you’ve seen this one, please refrain from expressing your opinion until others have had a chance to respond.

From what I remember, no.

4

I’d say Linda is in the wrong for setting up such a stupid security system, and giving people the choice of whether to buy the clicker or not. Why couldn’t the price of the clicker be included in the security deposit? I am also really surprised that the police didn’t force Linda to set up her system so that ambulances and police cars could get out too. It’s her, and not Monique, that caused an ambulance to be tied up for several hours.

Yeah, Monique was dumb not to buy a clicker especially after she had an emergency that required one, but on the other hand, if I was her I would wonder why I should pay $25, when I could just as readily find a neighbor that had one. Don’t pay for something you can get for free, you know. The purchase of the clicker should have been mandatory for all tenants.

Then again, Monique lived there for two months without paying rent. Even if three days is way too short notice for an eviction (in some states, they make you post it a month in advance), she should have found another apartment before then. So it’s sort of justified that Linda kept the deposit. If this case was up to me, I’d force Linda to change her system and award Monique for the hospital bills (if the hospitalization was a result of the wait in the parking lot), but not give the deposit back. And maybe force her to kick in a little money to the hospital itself for tying up an ambulance.

(P.S. I didn’t see the episode. Can you spoiler-box the outcome?)

5

I watch a lot of Judge Judy (but haven’t seen this particular one. . .) so lemme guess:

Linda gets a heavy reaming for the stupid and unsafe “security system,” and the unlawful (I think) eviction.

Monique gets a bit of a thrashing for keeping herself and her daughter in an unsafe situation for more than a month (i.e. not buying a clicker and not making sure that Linda fixes the problem) and for the two months she stayed there rent-free after that.

Personally, I’d probably award the plaintiff all of the child’s medical bills, half of the mother’s, the security deposit, and pain and suffering to total $5,000 and the court costs, and then deduct one month of rent (for the month after the 30 days’ notice Linda should have given anyway.

6

My that’s an interesting security system. I suppose it’s to prevent car theft from the lot. It just seems so stupid to give the code to only the fire department and not the police and emts.

I’d find for the plaintiff. The landlord had a chance to fix the security system or contact the ambulance services to let them know the code which should have been done in the first place. I’d give the plaintiff medical expenses plus the security deposit.

Having said that, I wouldn’t be surprised if Judy found for the defendant because the plaintiff could have bought a clicker for emergencies.

7

I should mention that the eviction was for noise. Monique fought it all the way to (a different) court, then moved out when she lost.

“You should have bought a clicker. You already had one bad experience, you shoulda known better next time. Either you buy the clicker, or you move out. And you lived there rent free for two months. Nobody gets a free ride. Your case is dismissed.”

8

Presumably after the ambulance got stuck they radioed another ambulance and got them to transfer Monique to one outside the carpark - they didn’t just leave her sitting in the back of an ambulance all that time?

With regard to the verdict, I’m torn. The apartment manager definitely should have fixed the gates to allow any emergency services vehicles to be able to exit, as this was a life-and-death situation waiting to happen. VERY much Linda’s responsibility to do something. On the other hand, surely a person has a duty of care to themselves to take a minor interest in their own safety, so Monique should definitely have bought a clicker anyway.

But all things considered, I’d side with the plaintiff. Three day’s notice is not at all sufficient or reasonable time for a single mother to find new accommodation. 8 weeks (the 2 months Monique stayed on), however, seems like reasonable notice to find a new place. The fact that Monique stayed there without paying any rent is a bother though.

If she could show that she attempted to pay and was rebuffed, then that’s one thing, but if she deliberately withheld the money and chose to stay in the apartment rent-free then the cost of the rent should be deducted from the cost of the medical expenses, since you could argue that they’ve already been paid for via the lost rent. Any amount left outstanding after the rent had been deducted would be awarded to Monique. (Out of interest, did she at least get a clicker after her own visit to the hospital?)

My main judgment would be that Linda has to take immediate action to fix the security parking issue, and I’d insist on a court-appointed inspector checking the property for other hazards - at Linda’s expense - and lay a mandate that she fix those issues immediately. Depending on how many hazards there were - ie, how poorly the complex had been administrated - I might also level an additional fine and insist on a follow-up inspection report annually for the next five to ten years.

So effectively, I’d award pretty much squat to the tenant, but squish the manager (I am assuming she’s also the owner? I’m not too clear on property management roles in the US.) if it were proved she’d contributed to a potentially fatal situation by refusing to make reasonable changes to the car parking complex.

I’d probably make a very bad judge.

9

Or, I should have added, any deficit should be paid to Linda. My intent would be to get those two financially squared off to finalise their squabble. They’re both at fault here in terms of the eviction, and it’s unclear whether the delay of the ambulance was responsible for the 3-day stay in hospital or whether this would have happened anyway, so I’d not be awarding *extra * money based on this at all.

Then I’d move onto the more serious issue of why a potentially life-threatening situation was allowed to continue, and kick Linda’s ass all over the place.

10

Monique is under no obligation to buy a clicker, in my opinion. It should be the landlord’s responsibility to maintain a living unit in which emergency vehicles are able to have free access in and out. Otherwise, she’s creating a hazard. The fact that Monique should have bought a clicker as insurance, while it would have been a smart move, has no bearing for me on the case. It’s just fundamentally fucking stupid to create a hazard such as this one, be aware of the hazard, and not do anything about it. (I suppose you could make a similar argument for Monique, but, for me, the responsibility lies solely with the landlord.)

As for the rent, if the landlord had a problem, she should have evicted her tenant earlier. I’d give medical expenses minus due rent to Monique. I don’t think I could be convinced otherwise.

11

It’s unclear why it took so long to get her to the hospital. If it really was an emergency situation, another ambulance would’ve been called so she could be transferred. If that’s the case, Linda’s security system, flawed though it is, has nothing to do with her stay in the hospital. It’s hard to believe that if it was truly a life-or-death emergency, another ambulance couldn’t be found and parked outside the building to transfer her. Therefore it’s likely that she would’ve spent that time in the hospital regardless of the time it took to transfer her.

Monique seems to be the kind of litigious person who is willing to blame her problems on anyone but herself. Linda is an idiot, and I’m surprised that her city allows such an assinine system (most cities license these things), but if it’s within the law, I don’t see that there is any legal recourse there.

My judgement would be for the defendant, meanwhile advising her to reconsider her security system.

StG

12

Seems to me like Linda was all too happy to protect her investments (letting the fire department have the code) but was reckless with the lives of her tennents. I don’t feel much sympathy for her.

13

Here, the apartment complex would get fined by the State. You can limit who you allow in, but you can’t block egress.

14

Regardless of how the judge should rule, I would say the whole clicker thing is a problem no matter how you look at it.

Even if someone bought a clicker, or seven clickers just to be safe, if they had a heart attack and were the only person living in that unit, how would the EMT’s know where he/she keeps the clicker? I could think up example after example where the preson makes a reasonable effort but due to circumstances still winds up w/o the clicker or passcode.

It just seems like there would be a rule against that in every state.

15

My thoughts exactly. I have never, in my entire life, been to a building that didn’t have an automatic exit without the need for a key or clicker or code. That is a disaster waiting to happen.

I think Judge Judy’s ruling was way off base.

I would have awarded the woman a year’s free rent and fined the owner of the building.

What if Judge Judy had been visiting a friend and had a heart attack…bet she would have changed her ruling then.

BTW, I saw some wag was suggesting Judge Judy for the open slot on the Supreme Court and she said, “what, and take a cut in pay?”

16

I agree.

As stupid as I think the security system is, if it’s not illegal, I don’t think there’s anything the law can do for the plaintiff. (If it IS illegal, that’s another matter. I honestly have no idea if such a thing is likely to be legal or not.)

From a “law-be-damned, what’s the right response” perspective, I’d probably not have any money change hands, but force Linda to change her system. I might have Linda pay Monique’s legal bills, but not her medical bills.

17

Assuming Judge Judy was a real judge in a real jurisdiction, she should’ve (and could’ve) referred Linda to her city’s Codes Enforcement agency to discuss the security system. All tenants should have a passcode, and there should be passcodes assigned to each of the public-safety agencies. Better yet, she should get rid of this egress-control system and go with a standard buzz-in/passcode entry system, like every other apartment complex. I would also require a full roof-to-basement inspection of every unit on every floor to see where else Linda cut corners.

I would also award damages to Monique for Linda’s negligence. (IIRC, negligence is decided under a “knew or should have known” standard of some danger where failure to act has the strong possibility of causing harm to a person or property.) Linda knew or should have known that the security system would hamper public-safety efforts to protect life and property. However, I would only award actual expenses to Monique because the eviction had nothing to do with the ambulances being called.

Robin

18

I don’t know what the laws are but I would think the owner is liable if she set up an unsafe system and sdidn’t fix it after being alerted. I agree with the poster who said the clicker should be included into the security deposit but what if it’s lost or becomes defective? The ambulance must be able to get in and out. It could mean life or death for someone.

Refusing to buy the clicker if you have health problems is just plain stupid and add to that the free rent so I would say damages are defered.

19

Neither litigant mentioned that, so I assume that didn’t happen. Yeah, strange.

She claimed she did attempt to pay the money, and claimed she had proof. As she said this, she held up some sort of document. Judge Judy was not interested, as she had already formed a strong opinion.

Monique claimed that she tried to pay the rent on December 1st. Linda smiled and said “No, I want you out of here today.” The eviction notice came on the 3rd, saying that Monique must be out on the 5th. The case was taken to court, and the Judge ruled that Monique leave immediately. That case was in late January. Monique claims to have tried paying January rent.

Since Judy is technically an arbitor and not a judge, I wonder how much actual power she has to order such a thing. She has ordered property exchange in other cases. And I once saw Judge Joe Brown order the arrest of a defendant. But I don’t think either has the powers of a full judge.

This wasn’t clear to me either. I wondered why she didn’t go after both Linda and the owner together, unless Linda was the owner. They never said.

20

Let’s consider a slightly different situation.

I had lived in an apartment for 15 years. At the end of that time, I was long since unemployed and then the building changed ownership. In early August 2002 I met with the new owner. He explained that if I wanted to stay, I was welcome to, but my rent would increase by 150%. (That is, I’d be paying 250% of what I had been.) I expressed astonishment and disbelief. I said that there was no way I could do that without a job. He shrugged his shoulders and left.

I should mention that his ownership began on September 1, but he couldn’t legally raise the rent until October.

Not knowing what to do, I stonewalled until whatever deity saw fit to bestow some good fortune on my sorry ass. On August 15, I received an eviction notice ordering me to leave by October 1. In this state a tenent at will must give or receive 30 days plus the remainder of the current month notice to move out, so he couldn’t evict me before then. His lawyer said the notice was just a formality, and I could renegotiate my tenency.

On September 4, I got both a new apartment and a new job. On September 28, I was out of there. I never did pay him September rent.

He never came after me for it, but do you think I still owe it to him?