MovieChat Forums > Judge Judy (1996) Discussion > Auto Accident 11/4

Auto Accident 11/4

posted 8 years ago by maggiebret
12 replies | jump to latest

I swear, JJ needs to read up on her vehicle codes!

The plaintiff stated she had a green arrow and begin to negotiate a left turn. By law, she can turn in either lane. She chose to turn into the left lane of two because she noticed the defendant, traveling the opposite direction, inching up to turn right on red. It doesn't matter which lane the defendant was turning in. She had a red light, therefore, she had the duty to yield the right of way to the plaintiff. That's basic driving 101. The fact that JJ treated this as a lane change dispute is ridiculous. It was a right of way dispute and the plaintiff should have won. JJ has been getting on my nerves lately!

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

I want to know the same thing.

Driver with the green arrow has the right of way. Driver with the red light has to yield to oncoming traffic, even though it's legal to make a right-on-red (which has become so dangerous in my state - RI, as NO ONE stops to make the right on red, they just fly around corners).Once those with the green arrow are done making a left turn, THEN those at the red light can make a r-o-r.

This is new to JJ?

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 

[–] maggiebret 8 years ago

It's the same in California. I work in claims and I'm an arbitrator on the auto damage side so I have to know the laws. I thought this was going to be open and shut since the defendant had a red. Then she treats the defendant's passenger as an independent witness. Ummm, she's a passenger, a party in the accident not a independent witness. She's not impartial.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

Then she treats the defendant's passenger as an independent witness. Ummm, she's a passenger, a party in the accident not a independent witness. She's not impartial.

I was thinking the EXACT same thing - isn't she a party in the accident? How did JJ find her impartial? It wasn't as though she was standing at the corner and witnessed the whole thing - she was in the car which was involved.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 

[–] chambers112 8 years ago

Yeah, the judge messed this one up. It was funny but ridiculous when she asked the defendant's passenger are you sure the other driver was drifting into the right lane. I'm positively sure! Well that clinched it, her judicial hands were tied. Maybe her lie detector is defective or it's time to retire.

meg.

[–] Syn84 8 years ago

Didn't JJ also ask defendant's "witness" if she heard what the police officer said after JJ allowed defendant to tell JJ what the cop said? What happened with "you can't tell me what anyone else said"?

===
When I die, I want to be buried face down. That way whoever doesn't like me can kiss my ass.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

I think in that case, if the woman was close enough to hear the conversation, then she is a credible witness to back up what was said in the conversation. I think that's legal.

Many times a litigant will bring in a witness to a conversation they had with the other litigant. A lot of times they will say the three of them were sitting at 'the kitchen table' when the two litigants made a verbal agreement, or the other litigant gave a date of when they would move out, etc. It's perfectly legal if you were present during the conversation.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

If the plaintiff was telling the truth when she said she had a green arrow, then she would have had the right of way. The defendant said the plaintiff told the police officer that her light was yellow, but when her dad arrived, he told her to say the light was green.

I didn't understand why the officer didn't take a report.

The defendant's witness was not a friend of the defendant; JJ cut her off, but it appeared the defendant may have been a transportation aide of some sort, and she was taking the witness to an appointment. If that was the case, she is more impartial than, say, a witness that was her sister.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

The defendant was an Uber driver, and the witness was her passenger. She claimed it was the first time the witness was ever her passenger, as they never met prior to that.

"Splodey heads keep splodin' " - Sarah Palin, 7-1-16 

[–] misterbfd 8 years ago

I haven't seen this case, but if I am reading it right, I will respond: In some states, Florida being one of them (where I live), it is illegal to make a left turn into the right lane. When making a left turn from a single turn lane onto a two lane road, you are required by law to turn into the left lane. Turning left from a single turn lane into the right lane of a two lane road is a violation of the law and puts that driver at fault in the case of a collision that occurs in the right lane.

Again, I didn't see the case in question, I'm just trying to put together the information from what I'm reading in the original post.

BTW, Colorado and Alabama are among the many other states that have this same law.

-----

Shooting has started on my latest movie: http://www.imdb.com/title/tt5531336/

[–] anslingermustdie 8 years ago

Actually, FS316.151(1)b has no requirement as to lane choice. The only way her decision made sense is if she thought the plaintiff didn't really have the arrow but it seemed like she believed her.

[–] willywonkasrevenge 8 years ago

I believe AZ is the same. I had to go to traffic court years ago and the instructor was a motorcycle cop who talked about this.

Either way, the right-on-red failed to yield.

BTW, they have traffic laws in FL? When I was there (Gulf Coast), red lights were optional and blocking intersections was customary.

_____________________
I'm your Huckleberry.

[–] DarlaKDavis 8 years ago

You are exactly right. I was yelling at JJ over this one. The plaintiff had the green turn arrow, into either lane, as she was turning on a green arrow.. The defendant had a right to turn right on a red light, with the obligation to yield to drivers with a green light. Regardless of her passenger's so-called testimony, the defendant was in the wrong. Judge Judy got this one wrong.

*************************************
Be kinder than necessary. J.M. Barrie