He really is going to say the three year old is at fault for getting themselves killed. This man is something else. He won't say it's his fault when JJ asked him about that scenario.
@@G0dismabestfren he doesnt understand that he didn’t ACTIVELY DO WRONG. But he failed to PREVENT OR ANTICIPATE a potentially DANGEROUS situation and adjust their speed accordingly. Therefore, he is guilty of being responsible for his minor child's negligence or negligent assault with a vehícle
This “father” and other parents like him are the reason why America is in the state it is in. People walking around with zero accountability for their own actions. It is always someone else’s fault.
No one is at fault. They are kids. Accidents happen. You don't go suing the parents when it's your own kid that is equally at fault. It's not the other parents responsibility that you are dumb enough to get your kid a 1500 dollar bike. Bet he wouldn't be suing them if it was a 50 bike. You just go out and get another one. Jeez, some people 🙄
Damn........you're mad because you can't afford a 1500 bike for your kid? I see right now, you will NOT be a parent that holds yourself or your kids accountable for their actions geesh 🙄
@@blackqueenmelanin1449 I'm all for holding kids accountable for their actions and choices I don't think they should be held accountable for ridiculous purchases made by their parents.
@@blackqueenmelanin1449 The kid at fault here was the girl for riding her bike out of control and hitting the boy. If it were my kid 1) I wouldn't have bought her such an expensive bike in the first place. 2)If it gets wrecked because kids are being kids, and she wants another one, I would make her save up and buy her own bike. It wouldn't cost 1500 but she might be a bit more careful with it.
@@Alice-ui9oy but, that's you though! If you choose to buy your kid a bike that costs that much, it's perfectly fine but if your kid is at fault, you teach your child accountability and making her/him save her/his own money to replace the bike is a good lesson!
when you are abiding by the law, and a three year old runs out into road: who is responsible? The adult who should have been watching the three year old.
Yes exactly! It's the parent's job to think of the bigger picture here. Bikes can be replaced. Maybe it won't be another 1500 bike but that is a luxury item anyway, hardly a necessity.
Just because they were driving within the speed limit, doesn’t mean they weren’t going to fast. You as the rider have to be prepared for unpredictable things to happen and have a good reaction time. It was too fast for the girl to be able to the either stop or maneuver to avoid hitting the boy. There were other children out there going at different speeds, vehicles, etc. They weren’t riding on an open track. The dad is responsible.
Young children are neurologically unable to deal with traffic dangers. They are not capable of judging speed and distance in relation to their actions.
JJ don’t care what you agree or disagree! His daughter was going too fast and hit a 12-year-old child with her bike while he was driving slowly. He could’ve got bruises or injuries from the bike accident she made. Stop defending the daughter and the father! He don’t get it through his thick skull! JJ is right, don’t bicycle too fast or you’ll hurt anybody.
@@piasecki20 so did the defendant, he followed traffic laws! He’s 12, not a 3-year-old child! Judy tried to explain the worse case scenario to the plaintiff if the child was 3 years old getting hit, killed or seriously injured by the bike that big and see who’s fault is it? His mother or the plaintiff’s? I choose the latter because he did not stop or slow her down to make sure his daughter doesn’t hit other people! I stand by Judy’s decision! The plaintiff was at fault!
@Steven Potter well, the plaintiff admitted that his daughter hit him not the other way around! You are excusing and defending the plaintiff for his arrogant behaviors towards the mother and her 12-year-old child or you are the plaintiff from this video that have no humanity whatsoever for the little boy!
@@piasecki20 JJ is ruling they were going too fast _for their conditions._ The best analogy is driving a car in very poor weather. You could obey all of the laws and go the speed limit, but if you don't have the capability to stop to avoid an accident, then you're going too fast.
The three year old's parents were responsible. You can't go so slow all the time in anticipation that a kid is going to run out in front, it'd be nice but it's not practical.
If a three year old jumps in front of moving vehicles going the speed limit, the parents get in trouble. For not watching the kid, not the person operating the bike. I don’t agree with this the ruling
The example JJ gave was not a good one BECAUSE if I’m a motorist going the speed limit and an adult is not supervising their toddler and they dot out in front my car unexpectedly and I hit them, that wouldn’t be my fault. JJ had a case like this before and she said the mother should have been watching the child so I get why he’s confused. He’s looking at this incident the same way. Yes accidents happen, but had it been a parked car and a kid ran into it and damaged it for WHATEVER reason, you would want your car fixed. Not sure why people confused about why he’s confused. 😂😂😂
Judge Judy's analogy does not sit well with me. I would think that the parents would be responsible for the three year old who runs out into the street. They're the ones who are supposed to be watching him/her. In all fairness, a twelve year old may be a different story though.
The 3 year olds parent would be responsible if a toddler got away and runs out into a road. If hit by a car it would be the same thing, the child might die though. A horrible accident that might leave the driver and family in shock for ever I imagine.
It is the parents responsibility but unless it's at a park, school, or shopping center. As a driver, the pedestrians are like animals. You are going to be at fault if you are not fully observant. Unless you on a highway, be observant of pedestrians. Some be blind or mentally challenged. As a driver, you should consider them all blind people. Which sucks as a driver at times. Vehicular manslaughter exist. That also include bicyclists. If that kid get injured by you hitting him or her with that bike, you are at fault.
@@erickanew wow. So we're not talking about a park or any thing. But you are saying that in America. If the pedestrian jumps out so close to the car that the driver has no time to react and his the pedestrian that the driver is at fault? I mean you would feel awful. But how could the driver be at fault if on a proper road doing the correct speed? In Australia for instance. If a pedestrian steps into moving traffic from behind a parked car. They can be liable. Imagine the insurance scams that someone who knows how to be hit could achieve.
@@valuba if they just poof appear from behind a bush sure. But that’s not going to be most. You’re supposed to drive cautiously in contexts with parked cars and such as your vision is obscured. Really depends on specifics. If you can already see the child, as it was in this case it seems, then you 100% are to blame for not slowing in case the child you see runs in front of you suddenly. That’s one of the first things you learn in drivers Ed, to be competely aware of your surroundings and potential risks.
Judge Judy’s point is the adult (the father) is responsible. It’s your responsibility while riding your bicycles to be vigilant and be aware of your surroundings. The fact that your daughter caused the impact because neither of you were paying attention, and then you sue the child and his parent for YOUR inability to pay attention is the issue here.
so, what if a 3 yr old runs out from behind bushes and you hit the child with your car even though the speed limit is say... 35MPH, or how about 25 MPH? the 3 yr old would be killed or maimed and it would be an accident. wouldn't it? yes, we have to have control of our vehicles, but we are not supposed to crawl at 5 or 10 miles per hr just "in case" something or somebody jumps out in front of us. JJ may be right regarding this case, but her example is terrible. wrong.
She used this analogy because he think 12 years old boy big enough for a responsibility, but if it was 3 old child who will wrong? In this situation he and his daughter had to ride as fast as they could handle the bike in an emergency situation. they couldn't. so it's not the boy's fault, but it's not their fault either. Just accident. Due to the fact that the bike is very expensive, he cannot correctly assess the situation.
This Father might better consider himself blessed that JJ didn't give him much of a tongue lashing...I have seen her go off on parents in front of their own children in courtrooms, and if the children get scared and cry because of it, JJ has been known to show no sympathy for the children's tears....she can be savage...
I've been watching JJ for a long time now and I've never seen that happen-that she shows no sympathy for the children's tears. Although I have seen her remove the children from the courtroom first before she goes off on the parents.
@@boweryboy07 well then you need to watch that one episode where two sets of parents were in court against each other because the one parent's 8-year-old son accidentally shot the other parent's 10-year-old son with a BB gun.... Judge Judy went off on the father of the 8-year-old, blaming it all on him, and then she confiscated the bb gun despite the eight year old crying like crazy at the end of the case....JJ just proceeded to get up afterwards, and walk casually out, bb gun in hand, like it was just another day at the office....and no sympathy for any boy's tears....
I don't usually disagree with Judy, but it's the three year old's mother at fault in her pretend story. She's guilty of failure to supervise adequately!
I can't comment on this situation bc I wasn't there and don't know their laws. However, I think JJ was wrong in her example of a 3 yr old darting into traffic . I've read and seen news accounts of kids running into the street and getting hit by cars . The drivers who were driving legally didn't get charged bc it was not their fault. Even driving slowly you can't stop on a dime ( always) if a kid runs out directly in front of you. Again, this is only in reference to JJ's example. I dont wish harm on anyone.
Her analogy is not very good. Here's a similar one: You are driving on a highway with a posted speed limit. You are driving 55. A little farther ahead you see a child on a bicycle pedaling on the shoulder. Should you slow down? Speed limits are limits under normal conditions. Sometimes, such as in fog, or snowstorms, there is an expectation that you will slow down to match the conditions, and you can get ticketed for exceeding a safe driving speed regardless of the limit. In this case, it appears to have been snowing 12 year olds.
The 3 year olds parent's would be responsible! If they are riding their bikes legally and a 3 year old jumps out the bushes and you hit and kill them, any decent lawyer would get the charges dropped and possibly file charges against the parent's for negligence. That was a terrible analogy by Judge Judy.
He understood completely, just didn’t have the guts to say, you’re right, I’m responsible. The truly sad part is parents who can’t take responsibility for their actions raise children who can’t either
JJ's analogy is so off. If someone is abiding by the laws and someone negligently let's a 3 year old run into the street, how is the driver supposed to react? I swear, just because they're the adult doesn't mean they should be accountable for everything that goes wrong, especially when they did nothing wrong. What is a 3 year old running around a street anyway? What an awful hypothetical.
Tbh, if we don't blame the parents for the 3 year old, it'll be the 3 year Olds fault. If you couldn't see the 3 year old and obeying all traffic laws, it's definitely not on the one driving the car. Thats why he's so damn confused
I think people are missing the point here, and I think it's because of her question. There have been plenty of times when a driver has hit a child crossing the road and doesn't get charged if they didn't do anything wrong. She is not saying he is at fault. But they also aren't trying to sue for damages. It was an accident period. A child doesn't know better.
I think JJ is awesome but in this case I 100% disagree with her. So, if a toddler walks into the road and not at a designated cross walk which is illegal (J walking) and I'm driving at the legal speed limit and cannot stop my 2000 pound car or any vehicle for that matter in time I'm at fault because of the victims age? I would definitely appeal her ruling.
but in a different case, a girl ran out into the street and got hit by a car. when the parents sued the driver, jj didn't say the driver was responsible... she said the parents of the child were responsible. So her analogy of the three year old makes no sense.
Laws may have been amended between the two time periods. Also, there is a grey area in some laws which would allow judges to use discretion to interpret certain situations. So, her analogies don’t need to be blanket statements.
Yes, the parents would be responsible for the safety of the 3y/o, but JJ used the analogy in this case because the plaintiff was blaming the 12y/o for the accident his daughter caused. In both the real case and the analogy, the 3y/o & 12y/o were not at fault.
Yes, but in this case the dad is suing to replace his daughter’s damaged bike. This would be like the driver that hit that girl suing to have a dent in his car fixed from where he hit her. She is not saying that the parents of the hypothetical 3 year old are not also to blame for what happened, but that they are not responsible for replacing/repairing the bike that was damaged as a result.
This is more like the JJ case where a boy took his mothers car and him and a female (both under aged at the time btw) drove it off his mothers property wrecked and the female friend died and his mother tried to sue her mother for damage to her car even tho her son lived
He's like those people who tailgate, and then blame the person in front of them for stopping to suddenly and running into them. That's the whole reason you're not supposed to be that close. You are not being a responsible driver if you're not giving yourself enough room to react.
Gaurentee if it his '3 year old scenario' different ain't it then, p*** Poor father and a great loss to his children as they'll never understand, it's times like that I wish there were an Authority of Physciatrists who could under law intervene and prevent the future demise!🤔😒😓
I wish they would’ve posted the whole case. Both parties were trying to maneuver to avoid or go around something. It was an accident but I don’t think either one was at fault really. What kid’s bike is $1500? That’s insane😮
The Judge's example of a 3 year-old running out of bushes into a roadway, being struck, and killed is NOT the driver/riders fault. It happens all the time and the driver/rider are not held responsible.
Both parents are responsible, the girl's for not anticipating the dangers of going fast, the boy's for failing to keep him from crossing in front of incoming bikes. I cannot anticipate a three year old running into a street out of nowhere while I am driving/riding within the speed limits. Where were his parents?? Isn't their responsibility to keep him close to themselves and protected from getting himself in trouble at all times? If the kid sticks his finger into the electricity outlet and dies, are they going to sue the company of the outlets because they should have anticipated it?
@@melissachatwin9673 😂 a car and a bike is supposed to be on a road. A 3 yr old child isn’t, especially unsupervised. The police would’ve arrested the parents for neglect. 😐 I understand what the judge was attempting to say, just like you. But LOGICALLY, a child’s parent is responsible for monitoring them. In fact, in a different case when a little girl did get hit by a car, and the parents sued; Judge Judy found the parents to also be liable with the driver because the girl was crossing the road by herself. If I’m not speeding, and traveling completely legally, I’m not gonna anticipate that an idiotic parent would allow their 3 yr old to cross a road by themselves. 😑 Anyone who says they do, is a liar. The issue here is vigilance! Judge Judy used a BAD example to depict this. 🤷🏽♀️Simple as that. 🙃 If you want, we can agree to disagree and when you’re on a road, don’t go over 5 miles per hr. You know, just in case an unsupervised toddler crossed the road 👍🏾 EDIT: OH, btw I agree that he is responsible for this accident, but that’s only because he could actively SEEN there was other children riding bikes and made NO attempt to prevent the accident. Once he saw them, especially if they were unsupervised, he became responsible. But that’s not the scenario Judge Judy described with her example. She described a unsupervised 3 year old running out into the road without anyone seeing them. Her example was to invoke emotion and not logic 🤷🏽♀️
The responsibility is on both of them, her for going fast and not paying enough attention to her surroundings and his for cutting through without paying attention to his surroundings. Both children did wrong, both parents are avoiding their own responsibility.
I like her show but sometimes she is like Voltaire's "The U.S.S Make S Up". That analogy is ridiculous. The parents of the 3-year-old would be responsible.
I have to disagree with JJ on her analogy - substituting a 3 year-old for the 10-12 year old boy in this scenario is comparing apples to oranges. If the incident involved a 3 year- old, it would be the parent of the 3 year-old's fault for not watching their child and letting them run out into the road in front of oncoming traffic (whether that traffic is a bicyclist or a motor vehicle). However, regarding the incident as it actually happened, the young boy is not resonsible for the adult male and his daughter wrecking their bikes.
Is there a full case? If the bicyclists/vehicle is operating within the law and a 3 year old darts out and is killed, I would feel terrible but not sure if there's room for liable unless they can find fault. I didn't get what point she was making replacing the 12 and 3 year old under what seems to be different circumstances from what's being argued in this case versus her analogy
Its the legal guardian of the 3 year old who is responsible for the death of that 3 year old, because she did not adequately control and monitor her child sufficient to keep the child safe.
This guy would have insisted he/she/they (he and his daughter) that they weren't responsible/at fault if they had hit a car legally parked alongside the road. His argument would have been, "if it hadn't been parked there, I/we wouldn't have hit it."
Upstairs in his brain he knows the right answer, but to admit it would be to confess that he was responsible for what happened. I can't understand why he would put the blame onto the child (the mother of the same child) when he was the adult who was present. Common sense falls apart if it means accepting responsibility.
He is holding kids to a higher standard than he is holding himself. Very strange 😂
That’s just sick!
He really is going to say the three year old is at fault for getting themselves killed. This man is something else. He won't say it's his fault when JJ asked him about that scenario.
Better than letting them think they can get away with whatever they want....
@@G0dismabestfren I thought he was going to say it was the parents of the 3 year old to blame...lol..
@@G0dismabestfren he doesnt understand that he didn’t ACTIVELY DO WRONG. But he failed to PREVENT OR ANTICIPATE a potentially DANGEROUS situation and adjust their speed accordingly. Therefore, he is guilty of being responsible for his minor child's negligence or negligent assault with a vehícle
This guy gets it, he just doesn’t want to admit that his daughter is at fault - UGH
Nah he doesn't
Damn
It's the girls fault she should be punished
This “father” and other parents like him are the reason why America is in the state it is in. People walking around with zero accountability for their own actions. It is always someone else’s fault.
I wouldn’t say that’s the reason ,it can be a contribution ,but definitely not the reason 🙄
This father and others like him are the only ones that are breeding and that is why this country is the way it is! Ignorance produces ignorance.
He feels entitled
I don’t blame parents for America’s demise.
I blame the government
@@carltonthepug Your speech is irrelevant, if i may so !
No one is at fault. They are kids. Accidents happen. You don't go suing the parents when it's your own kid that is equally at fault. It's not the other parents responsibility that you are dumb enough to get your kid a 1500 dollar bike. Bet he wouldn't be suing them if it was a 50 bike. You just go out and get another one. Jeez, some people 🙄
Only fault it is is the driver's
Damn........you're mad because you can't afford a 1500 bike for your kid? I see right now, you will NOT be a parent that holds yourself or your kids accountable for their actions geesh 🙄
@@blackqueenmelanin1449 I'm all for holding kids accountable for their actions and choices I don't think they should be held accountable for ridiculous purchases made by their parents.
@@blackqueenmelanin1449 The kid at fault here was the girl for riding her bike out of control and hitting the boy. If it were my kid 1) I wouldn't have bought her such an expensive bike in the first place. 2)If it gets wrecked because kids are being kids, and she wants another one, I would make her save up and buy her own bike. It wouldn't cost 1500 but she might be a bit more careful with it.
@@Alice-ui9oy but, that's you though! If you choose to buy your kid a bike that costs that much, it's perfectly fine but if your kid is at fault, you teach your child accountability and making her/him save her/his own money to replace the bike is a good lesson!
He still goes like "I don't know what we did wrong" even after JJ logically tried explaining him. Guess he left his brain home.
I checked his home, it wasn't there. Rumor in his neighborhood say he lies about having a 🧠 at all.
Hard pill 💊 to swallow 😊 I don’t understand what we did Wrong 🙄
@@Samira87333HILARIOUS!😂
@@Samira87333 🤣 🤣 🤣 🤣
Worse. He doesn't want to admit he was wrong. That admission hits hard for him
It’s the year 2070, this man is in his death bed, he’s still heard mumbling “I just don’t understand what we did wrong”
😂😂😂😂😂🤣🤣🤣
He didn't do anything wrong. It was an accident.
Hahahaha😆😆😆😆
And the Ghost of Judge Judy says "goodbye Mr weeks!"
@@MichaelBnothere I can see JJ outliving him though
That father just didn't have the brains to accept he was the adult.
And he is a lard ass
His ego would not let up no matter how logical she made it or he's a complete simpleton
Simpleton
@@mojavewolf1 👍👍👍👍
when you are abiding by the law, and a three year old runs out into road: who is responsible? The adult who should have been watching the three year old.
Amen
That was my first thought!
BINGO!
Exactly!!!
Thank you!!
Those poor kids. The father isn't thinking about his daughter having to go to school with the kid her father sued.
Yes exactly! It's the parent's job to think of the bigger picture here.
Bikes can be replaced. Maybe it won't be another 1500 bike but that is a luxury item anyway, hardly a necessity.
@@Alice-ui9oy Exactly!
Hehehe it was awkward (this video was made 12 years ago)
The father is a louse! He knows the answer. He just doesn't want to pay SMH
His daughter has got to embarrassed that dad is still asking what he did wrong even after being schooled by JJ 😂
To this day, he's still questioning what he did wrong...
Just because they were driving within the speed limit, doesn’t mean they weren’t going to fast. You as the rider have to be prepared for unpredictable things to happen and have a good reaction time. It was too fast for the girl to be able to the either stop or maneuver to avoid hitting the boy. There were other children out there going at different speeds, vehicles, etc. They weren’t riding on an open track. The dad is responsible.
Young children are neurologically unable to deal with traffic dangers. They are not capable of judging speed and distance in relation to their actions.
Some people will never get it. This guy has the intelligence of roadkill (pun intended).
I love " pun intended " , it says it all 👍🏾
Ouch!! :)
That's an insult to roadkill.
Don't be so sure of that.
I would love it if he said(when asked who was resposible)...
"The PARENT of the THREE year old"😂.
I guess there's no cure for stupidity. He doesn't want to accept responsibility.
In the words of Forrest Gump - "stupid is as stupid does"
JJ don’t care what you agree or disagree! His daughter was going too fast and hit a 12-year-old child with her bike while he was driving slowly. He could’ve got bruises or injuries from the bike accident she made. Stop defending the daughter and the father! He don’t get it through his thick skull! JJ is right, don’t bicycle too fast or you’ll hurt anybody.
She wasn't bicycling too fast if she was following the traffic laws... You literally make 0 sense.
@@piasecki20 so did the defendant, he followed traffic laws! He’s 12, not a 3-year-old child! Judy tried to explain the worse case scenario to the plaintiff if the child was 3 years old getting hit, killed or seriously injured by the bike that big and see who’s fault is it? His mother or the plaintiff’s? I choose the latter because he did not stop or slow her down to make sure his daughter doesn’t hit other people! I stand by Judy’s decision! The plaintiff was at fault!
@@anthonyguarino4242 they literally said the boy came out of a bush and hit the daughter... did you forget that part?
@Steven Potter well, the plaintiff admitted that his daughter hit him not the other way around! You are excusing and defending the plaintiff for his arrogant behaviors towards the mother and her 12-year-old child or you are the plaintiff from this video that have no humanity whatsoever for the little boy!
@@piasecki20 JJ is ruling they were going too fast _for their conditions._ The best analogy is driving a car in very poor weather. You could obey all of the laws and go the speed limit, but if you don't have the capability to stop to avoid an accident, then you're going too fast.
Perfect example of taking personal responsibility for your actions. Plaintiffs problem is he want to find fault. Sometimes it's just an accident.
The three year old's parents were responsible. You can't go so slow all the time in anticipation that a kid is going to run out in front, it'd be nice but it's not practical.
"GOOD BYE MR WEEKS" Case Closed!!! Nothing else to be said.
Parties are excused. Step out!
I think it all depends on JJs mood! She’s not always fair!!
Sorry Judge Judy, but if a 3 year old runs out into a multi-lane street, it's the fault of whoever was supposed to be watching them.
That's true too.
No it's the kids fault
If a three year old jumps in front of moving vehicles going the speed limit, the parents get in trouble. For not watching the kid, not the person operating the bike. I don’t agree with this the ruling
The example JJ gave was not a good one BECAUSE if I’m a motorist going the speed limit and an adult is not supervising their toddler and they dot out in front my car unexpectedly and I hit them, that wouldn’t be my fault. JJ had a case like this before and she said the mother should have been watching the child so I get why he’s confused. He’s looking at this incident the same way. Yes accidents happen, but had it been a parked car and a kid ran into it and damaged it for WHATEVER reason, you would want your car fixed. Not sure why people confused about why he’s confused. 😂😂😂
When I go through a neighborhood with kids, I ALWAYS anticipate kids running out in front of me. My head is on a swivel and my eyes are scanning.
Judge Judy's analogy does not sit well with me. I would think that the parents would be responsible for the three year old who runs out into the street. They're the ones who are supposed to be watching him/her. In all fairness, a twelve year old may be a different story though.
Damn
The 3 year olds parent would be responsible if a toddler got away and runs out into a road.
If hit by a car it would be the same thing, the child might die though.
A horrible accident that might leave the driver and family in shock for ever I imagine.
It is the parents responsibility but unless it's at a park, school, or shopping center. As a driver, the pedestrians are like animals. You are going to be at fault if you are not fully observant. Unless you on a highway, be observant of pedestrians. Some be blind or mentally challenged. As a driver, you should consider them all blind people. Which sucks as a driver at times.
Vehicular manslaughter exist. That also include bicyclists. If that kid get injured by you hitting him or her with that bike, you are at fault.
Pedestrians always has the right away that's what I always learned in driving school
@@erickanew wow.
So we're not talking about a park or any thing.
But you are saying that in America. If the pedestrian jumps out so close to the car that the driver has no time to react and his the pedestrian that the driver is at fault?
I mean you would feel awful.
But how could the driver be at fault if on a proper road doing the correct speed?
In Australia for instance. If a pedestrian steps into moving traffic from behind a parked car. They can be liable.
Imagine the insurance scams that someone who knows how to be hit could achieve.
@@valuba if they just poof appear from behind a bush sure. But that’s not going to be most. You’re supposed to drive cautiously in contexts with parked cars and such as your vision is obscured.
Really depends on specifics. If you can already see the child, as it was in this case it seems, then you 100% are to blame for not slowing in case the child you see runs in front of you suddenly. That’s one of the first things you learn in drivers Ed, to be competely aware of your surroundings and potential risks.
@@erickanewAs they SHOULD.
Judge Judy’s point is the adult (the father) is responsible. It’s your responsibility while riding your bicycles to be vigilant and be aware of your surroundings. The fact that your daughter caused the impact because neither of you were paying attention, and then you sue the child and his parent for YOUR inability to pay attention is the issue here.
He left his brain somewhere because it's certainly not in his head
The answer to that question is whoever was supposed to be watching the 3 year old.😐
so, what if a 3 yr old runs out from behind bushes and you hit the child with your car even though the speed limit is say... 35MPH, or how about 25 MPH? the 3 yr old would be killed or maimed and it would be an accident. wouldn't it? yes, we have to have control of our vehicles, but we are not supposed to crawl at 5 or 10 miles per hr just "in case" something or somebody jumps out in front of us. JJ may be right regarding this case, but her example is terrible. wrong.
JJ tries to make an analogy which is wrong. The parents of the three year old would be at fault.
I so agree.
I honestly think that it's also the responsibility of the other person.
She used this analogy because he think 12 years old boy big enough for a responsibility, but if it was 3 old child who will wrong? In this situation he and his daughter had to ride as fast as they could handle the bike in an emergency situation. they couldn't. so it's not the boy's fault, but it's not their fault either. Just accident. Due to the fact that the bike is very expensive, he cannot correctly assess the situation.
Agreed
The person in charge of watching/caring for the 3 year old at that moment is responsible.
This Father might better consider himself blessed that JJ didn't give him much of a tongue lashing...I have seen her go off on parents in front of their own children in courtrooms, and if the children get scared and cry because of it, JJ has been known to show no sympathy for the children's tears....she can be savage...
I've been watching JJ for a long time now and I've never seen that happen-that she shows no sympathy for the children's tears. Although I have seen her remove the children from the courtroom first before she goes off on the parents.
@@boweryboy07 well then you need to watch that one episode where two sets of parents were in court against each other because the one parent's 8-year-old son accidentally shot the other parent's 10-year-old son with a BB gun.... Judge Judy went off on the father of the 8-year-old, blaming it all on him, and then she confiscated the bb gun despite the eight year old crying like crazy at the end of the case....JJ just proceeded to get up afterwards, and walk casually out, bb gun in hand, like it was just another day at the office....and no sympathy for any boy's tears....
@@yahuchanonyakov saw that episode. Epic.
I don't usually disagree with Judy, but it's the three year old's mother at fault in her pretend story. She's guilty of failure to supervise adequately!
I can't comment on this situation bc I wasn't there and don't know their laws. However, I think JJ was wrong in her example of a 3 yr old darting into traffic . I've read and seen news accounts of kids running into the street and getting hit by cars . The drivers who were driving legally didn't get charged bc it was not their fault. Even driving slowly you can't stop on a dime ( always) if a kid runs out directly in front of you. Again, this is only in reference to JJ's example. I dont wish harm on anyone.
Her analogy is not very good. Here's a similar one:
You are driving on a highway with a posted speed limit. You are driving 55. A little farther ahead you see a child on a bicycle pedaling on the shoulder. Should you slow down?
Speed limits are limits under normal conditions. Sometimes, such as in fog, or snowstorms, there is an expectation that you will slow down to match the conditions, and you can get ticketed for exceeding a safe driving speed regardless of the limit.
In this case, it appears to have been snowing 12 year olds.
I agree with u
"IDK where we went wrong", smdh 😂😂😂
The 3 year olds parent's would be responsible! If they are riding their bikes legally and a 3 year old jumps out the bushes and you hit and kill them, any decent lawyer would get the charges dropped and possibly file charges against the parent's for negligence. That was a terrible analogy by Judge Judy.
He understood completely, just didn’t have the guts to say, you’re right, I’m responsible. The truly sad part is parents who can’t take responsibility for their actions raise children who can’t either
In her example if the 3 year old, I’d say the parents are responsible for letting a three-year-old walk outside unsupervised
JJ's analogy is so off. If someone is abiding by the laws and someone negligently let's a 3 year old run into the street, how is the driver supposed to react? I swear, just because they're the adult doesn't mean they should be accountable for everything that goes wrong, especially when they did nothing wrong. What is a 3 year old running around a street anyway? What an awful hypothetical.
Ok everyone you don’t actually have to take sides😂There’s no fault.
Way To Go Judge Judy 👏 He Don't Want To Take The Ownership Of What Happened Teaching His Daughter The Wrong Thing
Tell it JUDGE JUDY 😂😂
The parent of the 3 year old would be at fault for letting a child into a roadway.....come on Judy......
This level of obesity is very unsettling
Tbh, if we don't blame the parents for the 3 year old, it'll be the 3 year Olds fault. If you couldn't see the 3 year old and obeying all traffic laws, it's definitely not on the one driving the car.
Thats why he's so damn confused
"Dad" ... Stay away from alcohol !!!
I would say the parent of the three-year-old who should have been watching them.
The judge is correct, it's to have control at all times.
The father is putting damage on his daughter. She is going to be bullied the next day because of his ignorance
He still didn't get it!
He made me 🤦🏽♀️ so hard, I have a headache.
Smh he’s ridiculous.
I think people are missing the point here, and I think it's because of her question. There have been plenty of times when a driver has hit a child crossing the road and doesn't get charged if they didn't do anything wrong. She is not saying he is at fault. But they also aren't trying to sue for damages. It was an accident period. A child doesn't know better.
I think JJ is awesome but in this case I 100% disagree with her. So, if a toddler walks into the road and not at a designated cross walk which is illegal (J walking) and I'm driving at the legal speed limit and cannot stop my 2000 pound car or any vehicle for that matter in time I'm at fault because of the victims age? I would definitely appeal her ruling.
but in a different case, a girl ran out into the street and got hit by a car. when the parents sued the driver, jj didn't say the driver was responsible... she said the parents of the child were responsible. So her analogy of the three year old makes no sense.
Laws may have been amended between the two time periods. Also, there is a grey area in some laws which would allow judges to use discretion to interpret certain situations. So, her analogies don’t need to be blanket statements.
Yes, the parents would be responsible for the safety of the 3y/o, but JJ used the analogy in this case because the plaintiff was blaming the 12y/o for the accident his daughter caused. In both the real case and the analogy, the 3y/o & 12y/o were not at fault.
This was different his daughter hit the boy the boys mother should be suing him
Yes, but in this case the dad is suing to replace his daughter’s damaged bike. This would be like the driver that hit that girl suing to have a dent in his car fixed from where he hit her. She is not saying that the parents of the hypothetical 3 year old are not also to blame for what happened, but that they are not responsible for replacing/repairing the bike that was damaged as a result.
This is more like the JJ case where a boy took his mothers car and him and a female (both under aged at the time btw) drove it off his mothers property wrecked and the female friend died and his mother tried to sue her mother for damage to her car even tho her son lived
The entitlement is bonkers.
the man in this video (eric) is a sex offender currently in prison for sex abuse. Just so y’all know.
It’s the PARENTS of the 3 year olds. What is she talking about?…..😊
He's like those people who tailgate, and then blame the person in front of them for stopping to suddenly and running into them. That's the whole reason you're not supposed to be that close. You are not being a responsible driver if you're not giving yourself enough room to react.
Buy your daughter a new bike! Tell him Judge Judy
Gaurentee if it his '3 year old scenario' different ain't it then, p*** Poor father and a great loss to his children as they'll never understand, it's times like that I wish there were an Authority of Physciatrists who could under law intervene and prevent the future demise!🤔😒😓
This is messed up.
Obviously the parent of the 3 year old who let them crawl into traffic is responsible...
jude judy's analogy is wrong. in the case of the 3 year old, the parents of the 3 year are responsible and negligent
This is what's known in the vernacular as, "an accident."
I wish they would’ve posted the whole case. Both parties were trying to maneuver to avoid or go around something. It was an accident but I don’t think either one was at fault really.
What kid’s bike is $1500? That’s insane😮
Horrible example by the Judge. The 3-year-olds parents would be responsible.
He keeps asking what he did wrong. She’s told him twice and was givin examples. He just doesn’t like the answer
The Judge's example of a 3 year-old running out of bushes into a roadway, being struck, and killed is NOT the driver/riders fault. It happens all the time and the driver/rider are not held responsible.
THIS MAN EATS GLUE
Both parents are responsible, the girl's for not anticipating the dangers of going fast, the boy's for failing to keep him from crossing in front of incoming bikes. I cannot anticipate a three year old running into a street out of nowhere while I am driving/riding within the speed limits. Where were his parents?? Isn't their responsibility to keep him close to themselves and protected from getting himself in trouble at all times? If the kid sticks his finger into the electricity outlet and dies, are they going to sue the company of the outlets because they should have anticipated it?
Daddy's Work Shed has tool just like him: A Dull Flat Head Shovel.
Odd. ...a trial last week involved a horse killed by a motorist.... JJ would not give horse owner a judgment ....
Her reason was the horse should not have been in the road.....
If I were him, I would’ve told Judge Judy, it would’ve been the 3 yr old toddlers PARENTS fault! Cause wtf is the 3 year old not being supervised 😐😑
Or maybe you should travel at a speed that you can safely stop at🤦♀️ please don't get on the road
@@melissachatwin9673 😂 a car and a bike is supposed to be on a road. A 3 yr old child isn’t, especially unsupervised. The police would’ve arrested the parents for neglect. 😐 I understand what the judge was attempting to say, just like you. But LOGICALLY, a child’s parent is responsible for monitoring them. In fact, in a different case when a little girl did get hit by a car, and the parents sued; Judge Judy found the parents to also be liable with the driver because the girl was crossing the road by herself. If I’m not speeding, and traveling completely legally, I’m not gonna anticipate that an idiotic parent would allow their 3 yr old to cross a road by themselves. 😑 Anyone who says they do, is a liar. The issue here is vigilance! Judge Judy used a BAD example to depict this. 🤷🏽♀️Simple as that. 🙃 If you want, we can agree to disagree and when you’re on a road, don’t go over 5 miles per hr. You know, just in case an unsupervised toddler crossed the road 👍🏾
EDIT: OH, btw I agree that he is responsible for this accident, but that’s only because he could actively SEEN there was other children riding bikes and made NO attempt to prevent the accident. Once he saw them, especially if they were unsupervised, he became responsible. But that’s not the scenario Judge Judy described with her example. She described a unsupervised 3 year old running out into the road without anyone seeing them. Her example was to invoke emotion and not logic 🤷🏽♀️
Yes that’s why I was going to say the three years old parents would be to blame
You can clearly see this manatee doesn't bike regularly.
They both shouldn’t been out there initially!
What did he do wrong? I don't understand. (j/k)
I love sarcasm! 😆
He's 34???? Goddamn!!!!!
Too much blub around his brain on a bicycle.
Plaintiff doesn't want to answer the Judges question .
I would say the parents of the 3 yr old would be responsible. Neglect and endangerment
I don’t totally agree with Judge Judy on the last case. There has to be a better solition.
The responsibility is on both of them, her for going fast and not paying enough attention to her surroundings and his for cutting through without paying attention to his surroundings.
Both children did wrong, both parents are avoiding their own responsibility.
I like her show but sometimes she is like Voltaire's "The U.S.S Make S Up". That analogy is ridiculous. The parents of the 3-year-old would be responsible.
I have to disagree with JJ on her analogy - substituting a 3 year-old for the 10-12 year old boy in this scenario is comparing apples to oranges. If the incident involved a 3 year- old, it would be the parent of the 3 year-old's fault for not watching their child and letting them run out into the road in front of oncoming traffic (whether that traffic is a bicyclist or a motor vehicle). However, regarding the incident as it actually happened, the young boy is not resonsible for the adult male and his daughter wrecking their bikes.
Is there a full case?
If the bicyclists/vehicle is operating within the law and a 3 year old darts out and is killed, I would feel terrible but not sure if there's room for liable unless they can find fault. I didn't get what point she was making replacing the 12 and 3 year old under what seems to be different circumstances from what's being argued in this case versus her analogy
What makes these Judge Judy programs so good is that most of the people up before her are a bit dense.
I can’t believe most of these comments are calling him a DILF
Its the legal guardian of the 3 year old who is responsible for the death of that 3 year old, because she did not adequately control and monitor her child sufficient to keep the child safe.
A three yr old should be under her parents supervision. Otherwise I agree with her.
What a hard headed man! Just can’t get it thru his head that he might be wrong! A touch of racism in there too!😢
"I just don't understand what we did wrong, Your Honor".......
Thick thick thick.
😡😡😡
This guy would have insisted he/she/they (he and his daughter) that they weren't responsible/at fault if they had hit a car legally parked alongside the road. His argument would have been, "if it hadn't been parked there, I/we wouldn't have hit it."
The daughter was listening, maybe there is a chance
They were not going to fast, just faster…. At the end of the day it is called an accident folks. It’s just an accident and these things happen.
This guy needs quick time out...the grown man, not the child
Upstairs in his brain he knows the right answer, but to admit it would be to confess that he was responsible for what happened. I can't understand why he would put the blame onto the child (the mother of the same child) when he was the adult who was present. Common sense falls apart if it means accepting responsibility.
Honey you’re getting no money
The father was jailed as a child molester shortly after this episode aired!!!
Some people are just dense.