I used to work in insurance here in Canada. One day a customer came in to renew his registration and when we pulled up his info it said his license was suspended. We made sure to tell him as we always did so no one could ever say we hadn’t told them or something ridiculous. Well, of course he had been driving the vehicle. Left our office and hit another vehicle whose driver was a client of ours. Our customer came in and brought the suspended driver in w him. We made sure to take our time getting all the details we could possibly need for his insurance while another employee called the cops. Kept the suspended driver there til the cops came. 🤣 🤣. Sure made for an interesting day at work. 😆
Defendant was yelling cause he was told no matter what he did, he was at fault with the plaintiff. He was party to the accident, until he can find the other driver, he was without a driver's license and uninsured. Defendant then got disrespectful toward the Judge. Wrong move kid. You have a lot of growing up and learning to do.
I know the intersection in question well. Most of the intersections in this area have protected lefts (separate turn arrows), which would explain why oncoming traffic was moving. Still not reason for the defendant to try to justify driving without a license or insurance (he's also got a record of DUIs and unlicensed driving) and, as much as I don't care for these judges, I agree with the most obvious point: if he hadn't been driving unlicensed and uninsured, they wouldn't be in court.
He should have had insurance however they're suing the wrong guys its unfortunate that the guy cant be found however the defendant didn't do anything wrong besides not being insured
i dunno why s he was asking was there a red light on the other side of the road not her fualt they slammed into her car when she is stopped at a red light
@@malcolmwasher2308 he was yelling at the guy!!! But the judge is wrong about the oncoming traffic having a red light. That road has turn lanes and when the turn lanes going North/South are red the straight traffic has green lights. After all traffic in the same direction has red lights and it turns green for the turn lamest first. Then the turn lanes get red lights their respect traffic turns green.
I really hope that these clowns are not judges. And I really hope that these cases are scripted because even though he was in the wrong for not driving with insurance and driving on a suspended license or without a license that doesn’t warn him being sole responsible. For what happened It’s so funny how they have really clear videos in certain cities and then some they don’t and I’m sure that’s not the only video that was obtained from the evidence
Plaintiff had red light at left signal, therefore defendant had green light. Pretty obvious according to the video and the other cars stopped at the intersection.
Their problem is couldn't let you to speak they keeps talking over you that is very disrespecting and rude they tried to discipline's you its obvious they're not disciplined themselves
I like how everyone on the first video said it wasn't the defendant fault and haven't even looked at the whole video such as the second part. It was clear as day that the defendant is responsible whether he was insured or not for causing damages. The commentators from the first video must be braindead from their imagery of racism when it had nothing to do with it.
that dude judge is stupid, bc both being green isnt always the case. if a car reached the turn lane opposite the victim before she got to her turning lane, then their side (defendant) would turn green (including for the cars going straight) before her side lmao
The male judge was a little annoying. The defendant is wrong for being unlicensed and uninsured. But he did not cause the accident. He kept trying to play the "well he could have sped up to catch the light" story. Sir no. Just stop. The other car caused it by trying to cut clear across three lanes.
Judge was not rude, the defendant was and glad he was put in his place, that disrespect does not go in a court room session. Worst way to lose your case is disrespect a judge. You were not listening or watching the defendant. You never go into the courtroom disrespect a justice. NEVER!
He does that a lot. He always has a shady attitude, then when people snap back he acts as if they're mad for no reason. He loves talking over others an not letting them finish their sentences. Honestly he reminds me of Judge Joe Brown a bit, how he would just stereotype people & have his mind set up already on who will win before the case is even heard.
I disagree that Anthony was liable. I'm not a lawyer, but I had a few law courses in college. During the very first week of the very first law class that I took, I learned this elementary principle of tort law. The fact that something bad happens and someone else is there does not make the person liable. Unless, of course, that "other person" acted in a negligent manner. What act of negligence did Anthony commit by being hit by another driver? I watch a lot of the Hot Bench shows and usually agree with their decisions. But not this time.
They don’t understand how hard it is for the less fortunate. He actually tried to get a licensed. Judge corriero is reaching. He didn’t like the defendant from the jump. Regardless yes the plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant. The defendant needs to go after the other person. Period
Why do you say the judge didn’t like the defendant from the jump? It’s not about the less fortunate because everyone has the same opportunities. The defendant should not have been driving period. No license or insurance, should not have been on the road. Technically he could sue the third driver however legally he can’t because he shouldn’t have been driving. No lawyer would take the case.
No licence...no insurance... NO EXCUSE. His fault for driving without those.
Yes and no, if the other party was covered by liability, it shouldn't matter if he had it or not. The plantiffs had no insurance it sounds like too.
I used to work in insurance here in Canada. One day a customer came in to renew his registration and when we pulled up his info it said his license was suspended. We made sure to tell him as we always did so no one could ever say we hadn’t told them or something ridiculous. Well, of course he had been driving the vehicle. Left our office and hit another vehicle whose driver was a client of ours. Our customer came in and brought the suspended driver in w him. We made sure to take our time getting all the details we could possibly need for his insurance while another employee called the cops. Kept the suspended driver there til the cops came. 🤣 🤣. Sure made for an interesting day at work. 😆
Defendant was yelling cause he was told no matter what he did, he was at fault with the plaintiff. He was party to the accident, until he can find the other driver, he was without a driver's license and uninsured. Defendant then got disrespectful toward the Judge. Wrong move kid. You have a lot of growing up and learning to do.
Lol what's the matter with that defendant 😅
This is definitely one where you should have shown the reading of the verdict to this defendant.
No matter if you're hit, if you hit another car, you're always at fault.
That’s not right
If a truck hits you with enough force to push your car against another, it shouldn’t be your fault
I love the case but I do not like the judges. They are rude as hell. The judge can disrespect but can’t handle it when it’s given to them.
I know the intersection in question well. Most of the intersections in this area have protected lefts (separate turn arrows), which would explain why oncoming traffic was moving.
Still not reason for the defendant to try to justify driving without a license or insurance (he's also got a record of DUIs and unlicensed driving) and, as much as I don't care for these judges, I agree with the most obvious point: if he hadn't been driving unlicensed and uninsured, they wouldn't be in court.
He should have had insurance however they're suing the wrong guys its unfortunate that the guy cant be found however the defendant didn't do anything wrong besides not being insured
If you are disrespectful then don’t be alarmed to be disrespected in return no matter what your status
Yeah, the judge was very respectful; I don't know why Tyrone got all fired-up. Needs some anger-management classes for sure.
@@axon130Again, who the hell is Tyrone, Karen?
If he had a license he would know why he was in court.
This man I would have thrown out of the courtroom,I really do not like disrespectful people
AGREED.
They are suing the wrong person!!!
You can STILL sue someone for not having car insurance whether it was their fault or not
That judge was just being an ass
i dunno why s he was asking was there a red light on the other side of the road not her fualt they slammed into her car when she is stopped at a red light
Why was the judge being an ass? Which judge?
@@jimquinter5280 he was yelling at the plantiff asking if there was a green light on the otherside like who tf cares not her fualt she got hit
@@malcolmwasher2308 he was yelling at the guy!!! But the judge is wrong about the oncoming traffic having a red light. That road has turn lanes and when the turn lanes going North/South are red the straight traffic has green lights. After all traffic in the same direction has red lights and it turns green for the turn lamest first. Then the turn lanes get red lights their respect traffic turns green.
There was clearly a! advanced green on the young guy you can see the black SUV turning which would make me believe it’s advanced for those lanes
I really hope that these clowns are not judges. And I really hope that these cases are scripted because even though he was in the wrong for not driving with insurance and driving on a suspended license or without a license that doesn’t warn him being sole responsible. For what happened
It’s so funny how they have really clear videos in certain cities and then some they don’t and I’m sure that’s not the only video that was obtained from the evidence
Corriero & DiMango were judges ay one time. Acker is a lawyer.
welp thats the law the judges can't control that
Plaintiff had red light at left signal, therefore defendant had green light. Pretty obvious according to the video and the other cars stopped at the intersection.
Good lord, what a waste of space, another BS pile of nonsense with no insurance, license or experience. Jail time.
If he had a better attitude, I promise you they would have lessened the amount for damages.
You're out of order, young man.
Driving with no license and N0 insurance!
Take your wiseacre self somewhere else, you better learn.
Somebody convince me this show isn't fake.
If only judhe acker woulda raised her voice just alil more lol but very happy she got ole goon boy in check real quick
Their problem is couldn't let you to speak they keeps talking over you that is very disrespecting and rude they tried to discipline's you its obvious they're not disciplined themselves
Judge Michael is wrong. When there’s a turn lane the straight driving lanes would not have a red light!!!!
I like how everyone on the first video said it wasn't the defendant fault and haven't even looked at the whole video such as the second part. It was clear as day that the defendant is responsible whether he was insured or not for causing damages. The commentators from the first video must be braindead from their imagery of racism when it had nothing to do with it.
that dude judge is stupid, bc both being green isnt always the case. if a car reached the turn lane opposite the victim before she got to her turning lane, then their side (defendant) would turn green (including for the cars going straight) before her side lmao
The male judge was a little annoying. The defendant is wrong for being unlicensed and uninsured. But he did not cause the accident. He kept trying to play the "well he could have sped up to catch the light" story. Sir no. Just stop. The other car caused it by trying to cut clear across three lanes.
Nah, the judge was rude. He didn’t let the defendant talk in the beginning
Judge was not rude, the defendant was and glad he was put in his place, that disrespect does not go in a court room session. Worst way to lose your case is disrespect a judge. You were not listening or watching the defendant. You never go into the courtroom disrespect a justice. NEVER!
He does that a lot. He always has a shady attitude, then when people snap back he acts as if they're mad for no reason. He loves talking over others an not letting them finish their sentences.
Honestly he reminds me of Judge Joe Brown a bit, how he would just stereotype people & have his mind set up already on who will win before the case is even heard.
I used to like y'all! Forget y'all!! It's not the law! Never watch y'all again 😊
I don’t agree with the judges the defendant didn’t cause the accident the 3rd party did
Doesn't matter . . .he driving UNINSURED and WITHOUT A VALID DRIVER's LICENSE. HE is the one who hit the plaintiffs.
@@MedOKC he only hit them because someone else plowed into him causing him to lose control and crash into someone else’s car
@@delyn13If he wasn't driving illegally, the accident would not have happened.
@@michaelcole2122 he didn’t cause the accident the other person did
And you did not listen to the rest, he was unlicensed and uninsured. Illegally driving without a driver's license and the vehicle was uninsured.
He’s handsome even tho he’s a hot head 🥵
I disagree that Anthony was liable. I'm not a lawyer, but I had a few law courses in college. During the very first week of the very first law class that I took, I learned this elementary principle of tort law. The fact that something bad happens and someone else is there does not make the person liable. Unless, of course, that "other person" acted in a negligent manner. What act of negligence did Anthony commit by being hit by another driver? I watch a lot of the Hot Bench shows and usually agree with their decisions. But not this time.
They don’t understand how hard it is for the less fortunate. He actually tried to get a licensed. Judge corriero is reaching. He didn’t like the defendant from the jump. Regardless yes the plaintiff has the right to sue the defendant. The defendant needs to go after the other person. Period
Why do you say the judge didn’t like the defendant from the jump? It’s not about the less fortunate because everyone has the same opportunities. The defendant should not have been driving period. No license or insurance, should not have been on the road. Technically he could sue the third driver however legally he can’t because he shouldn’t have been driving. No lawyer would take the case.
Yeah, no. Tyrone isn't above the law nor special; he should have gotten his license and insurance like everybody else or walk/take public transit.