My coworker watches this show almost every work day at lunch. Usually I look up, but for the most part I do not care. Today, however, I was really into the Freddy and Angel case, and he turned it off because I was too into it. Now I am so mad that I do not know what happened. Please tell me. Thank you!!
shareIf that's the case where the plaintiff said his cat was on his side of the gate and that the dog pushed his snout through and grabbed the cat, the defendant ended up winning because he had security video camera footage of the dog mauling the cat on his own side of the gate. MM gave her standard "animals act like animals, it's in their nature, we never punish the animals, only the owners" speech and ruled for the defendant.
Dog attack cases must be the easiest cases to rule on. They're almost always cut and dried. Was the dog on a leash? Was the dog under your control? If you answer 'no' to either of these questions, you have about a 95% chance of losing.
Dog attack cases are also among the few that MM will consider awarding for "pain and suffering". Most people sue for pain and suffering because a limo driver was late or a hairdresser did a bad job, and that part of their claim is always dismissed, sometimes with a MM eyeroll, but if you're hurt by a dog, especially a pit bull or similar, that's actual pain and suffering. Statutory maximum!
The owner of Freddy was a woman right? If it's the case I'm thinking of, I believe the defendant won because Freddy was an outdoor cat and was on the property of the defendat. Judge Milian gave the plaintiff a stern talking to for allowing the cat to be outdoors while it was declawed.
share