Being All Wet
Вставка
- Опубліковано 5 тра 2024
- The plaintiff brought his car to the defendant's carwash. In the middle of the wash, the plaintiff's car crashed into another vehicle, so the plaintiff is suing for damages. The defendant defends himself and says the car in front of the plaintiff's applied their brakes. The defendant doesn't believe he or his business is responsible for the damage
Subscribe to our channel:
/ @peoplescourttv
Case # 32-049
#PeoplesCourt #RealityTV #Court - Розваги
He should have sued the person who braked not the owner. The car wash did nothing wrong. 🤷🏾♀️
The car wash guy doesn't look happy to give the first person car tag
This happened to me at a car wash. The lady in front of me kept hitting her brake and we ended up hitting. She took off, and I pulled over to see if there was any damage and there wasn't even a scratch. I was pissed off because she took off, but luckily there wasn't any damage.
😅
but lets keep it real , if she had not took off then u would still claim damage and try to sue her insurance company . i kissed someone's bumper at a stop lite once and i could clearly see there was not even a tiny mark anywhere so i kept going but the guy had big dents all over his car except for his rear bumper and he wanted me to pull over and i told him to look at his rear bumper because there was zero marks or damage and he was pissed because i know damn well he wanted my insurance company to repair his entire piece of junk car .
Rotten trick @@marleonetti7
Defendant did more than he was required to do
The plaintiff is greedy and glad he lost
This is why I only use the old fashioned hand wash. No scratching your car.
I wouldn't take A Lexus to one of the car washes. Hand Wash only.
Rarely do car wash owners lose!
Yep! Because they post signs everywhere stating they are not responsible for any damages. lol
THE PLAINTIFF KNEW WHO HE SHOULD BE SUING HE'S JUST FOLLOWING THE DEEPER POCKETS. HELL I WOULD'VE BEEN THINKING WHAT CAUSED IT START THERE SMDH . POINTLESS CASE. NOW @ THE BEING OF THE CASE THE PLAINTIFF WANTED IT TO BE KNOWN 2016 BMW LIKE THAT BS DOESN'T MATTER TOUR VEHICLE CAN GET HIT LIKE EVERYONE ELSE MAN THAT PRIVILEGED ENTITLED ATTITUDE HAS NO BOUNDARIES
They both have nice homes
The car wash should have provided the information and license plate number of the person who braked the day it happened. It's questionable as to whether they even have that information. I think the car wash should have been held responsible for that reason alone. Then let them sue the driver who braked.
Thankfully the law doesn't operate based on "feelings." The car wash had ample signage with disclaimers for liability, so they're not responsible. The Plaintiff should have been more vigilant in getting the other driver's information himself.
I wouldn’t use a car wash that had a
conveyer belt with multiple cars on it.
This is actually my biggest fear. I actually started to ask if they can keep a little distance from the car in front of me because some of the trucks jump the tire pushers..
This case is intriguing, but the plaintiff bears no fault here. The plaintiff communicates effectively; however, most car washes have disclaimers absolving them of responsibility for damages occurring inside. It's plausible there was a delayed reaction when the car wash shut off, leading to the collision with the car ahead. It's puzzling why the plaintiff didn't pursue the first car that applied brakes, as it initiated the domino effect of the accident. So, in all reality, the plaintiff must go after the first car that applied the brakes which initiated the domino car accident. Yet, demanding $1400 seems excessive, especially when the shop manager, as per the defendant, disputed the damages pointed out by the plaintiff and was uncertain of the accident's location. It appears the plaintiff may have aimed to include additional repairs at the car wash's expense. Moreover, the shop manager's estimation was solely based on the information provided by the plaintiff regarding the side damages to the car and the license plate rubber frame. Only after realizing the accident didn't occur at the car wash and considering the front-end collision, did the manager question whether those damages occurred there. The initial estimate the plaintiff received was a little over $1000, with the $1400 demand being from the second estimate. It's noteworthy that another establishment quoted $1006.11, and Lexus provided an estimate of $1000. Interestingly, the estimation quote displayed only the bottom half of the bill for "Total Replacement Parts," leaving ambiguity. What's intriguing is that the plaintiff omitted the $1400 quote, which might have included the side damages to the car. It's interesting how selective evidence can be presented in such cases.
I’ve been watching since judge Wapner!! And I recorded him on tape cassette!!!
Same! I watched him with my big brother after I got home from school every afternoon on the VCR. We both still watch reruns and discuss classic cases today. It’s the best show!
Same thing happened to me at the car wash EXCEPT no one pressed any brakes. My car clearly wasn’t fully on track n tried 3 times to move me forward before slamming me into the car in front of me. I’m the only one who ended up with damage n I got nothing out of it. Not even a fully washed car.
Harvey looks like he's been day drinking.
Harvey looks like he needs a vacation!😂
Plaintiff looks slimy
The adams family pinball machine is awesome
Why were multiple cars allowed in the terminal at one time?
It’s a multi vehicle car wash.
I went through this type of carwash in a 2004 f350. The teenager in front of me in brand new Tacoma kept hitting the brakes. I motioned for him to go forward as he was getting close to the end but he kept hitting his brakes and he could see me in his side mirror. I wondered who would be at fault as the car wash packs is in really close and I thought the conveyer should be able to tell if a car pops out of position.
I go to a car wash like this one, but they don’t run the vehicles so close together. The car ahead of you is already a decent distance through the wash before the gate arm even comes up to allow the next car in.
Even if the sign is there for car wash the employees should have been aware of what was going on especially with everyone honking and immediately shut off the system. Seems like someone that worked there was not paying attention as it was multiple cars that were affected and they just relied on the sign to protect them 🤔
The owner said when they heard the horns they shut the system off. There are many factors, how far is the shut off from where the worker was?, how many workers did they have that day? That’s a strong assumption
I find it irritating that the plaintiff keeps saying 'a multi car pile up', when this was just a tiny impact from cars moving along a sort of conveyor belt at 1m/h. He should be suing the car that braked, not the carwash owner...
There’s no way the cars are 6-9ft away from each other in any car wash
Our auto car wash here is only 3-4 feet
disclaimer can get ya out of anything, can't it? logic doesn't make sense in any other facet of life.
Hate the covid episodes.
👍🏻
Uht oh! 🍻🍻👽👽👽👽
Rich man goes home broke.
Is she really trying to say? How was that a $1000 worth of damage based off of a noise? 🤦🏻♀️ shes so annoying sometimes
And every other accident case she's yelling about how expensive body work is. She's ridiculous.
@@Moelle3635yes, yet she’s also fond of saying things like: *”If you even BREATHE on it, it costs you a ton of money”.*
First
Jesus answered, “I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me. John 14:6
and what does that have to do with this case? Go post on religious videos 😊
Bad ruling. Really bad. I feel for the plaintiff in this case.
It’s unfortunate but in most cases I’ve never seen Car wash owners loose. They always say they have no liability and it’s signs everywhere. He should have sued the car who pressed the brakes.
The only thing i feel bad about is how you are unable to comprehend law nor contracts. Ever.
If someone wanted to pay the plaintiff even though he lost would they be able to?
U say this on every video but yet you still watch Adrian?!??
The plaintiff has zero recourse against the car wash. This was an easy case to predict. Plaintiff 0, defendant 1.