MovieChat Forums > Judge Judy (1996) Discussion > Oink: Pig vs. dog (10-5)

Oink: Pig vs. dog (10-5)

posted 8 years ago by pvd295
29 replies | jump to latest

First of all, they do say pets resemble their owners and in this case between the two litigants it's a proven theory!

Now back to the case itself....

1. Why in the world did the plaintiff take a video of the pig coming close to her dog and playing with her dog? If the pig was unwelcome on her property and her dog was out there, wouldn't it have been smarter for her to shoo the pig off the proeprty or at least bring her dog INSIDE just to be cautious? Instead she pulled out her phone to take a video (and I don't believe for a second she meant to hit 'photo' and 'video' connected instead). So right there - she's liable for the injury as well.

2. The defendant brought a vet with her as well, and JJ wasn't expecting that or liking it one bit. How dare someone bring in a professional to rebut what Judy said? Like the vet who was a witness, I didn't see the pig actually bite the dog either - it was on the other side of the dog and out of eye-shot. I don't recall the vet bill saying it was injured from a pig bite, either. It was just a total amount for the visit.

I think JJ ruled incorrectly. If she was going to find fault with the pig owner, fine - but the plaintiff was also responsible for the safety of her own dog - not taking video for 'America's Funniest Home Videos'.

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

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

The defendant didn't bring in a vet, she had an animal control officer. Weren't you paying attention?

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

OOPs - I thought it was a vet. Still, even the ACO - Judge Judy didn't like being surprised with a professional witness. That threw her train off the track.

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

[–] LesterFester 8 years ago

by pvd295

i came onto this board to make comment on the same case. i remember a slightly different case where the owner of a house was found liable for vet bills to his own dog because he invited a neighbors pet into his home who went on to attack his dog (i understand the difference between the two cases). My point of agreement is that if the Great Dane owner chose not to restrain the pig or take steps to seperate them she was then welcoming the pig onto her property. At the very least partially responsible.

" Tipping is Un-American ... Keep your change! "

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

I would not get in between a huge hog and a dog, no way. And the plaintiff doesn't have to put herself in harm's way in order to collect for vet bills. I don't understand why people here don't think the defendant should be responsible for the vet bills- her hog TWICE had gone on to the plaintiff's property, and the second time it bit the dog on the leg. But the plaintiff was wrong for not walking the hog back to it's home?

No, I'll side with JJ on this one.

[–] Syn84 8 years ago

The plaintiff was wrong because she was just standing there, doing nothing and filming her dog getting hurt. Before the hog even attacked the dog she could've done something to get her dog to safety.

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

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

Bottom line: the dog wouldn't have been bitten if the defendant had kept the hog at home. She didn't, so she's responsible. The plaintiff is under no obligation to do anything. She can stand and watch, she can film, she can even encourage the dog to go near the hog. But if the hog was home, none of that would've happened.

The defendant was at fault.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

The plaintiff is under no obligation to do anything.

The plaintiff is ALWAYS responsible for keeping her dog in a safe environment away from harm. If a skunk or wild animal came onto her property, I'm sure she wouldn't stand there filming them - I'm sure she would bring him in for safety.

This is no different.

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

[–] engle_james 8 years ago

Pvd, are you saying the defendant shouldn't have had to pay the dog's vet bills?

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

he plaintiff is ALWAYS responsible for keeping her dog in a safe environment away from harm. If a skunk or wild animal came onto her property, I'm sure she wouldn't stand there filming them - I'm sure she would bring him in for safety.

This is no different.

It's not illegal for a skunk of wild animal to be on someone's property, now is it? But it was illegal for that 200 pound pig to be on the woman's property, and she's under no obligation to do anything about--not shoo it away, not scare it away, and not even pull her dog away. Besides, that pig was aggressive, as the video clearly showed, so it could very easily have attacked her if she did try to pull the dog away.

No, you're wrong. Sorry.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

Pvd, are you saying the defendant shouldn't have had to pay the dog's vet bills?

No, but I think the plaintiff was somewhat responsible. Rather than keeping her dog out of harm's way, she was being entertained.

But it was illegal for that 200 pound pig to be on the woman's property, and she's under no obligation to do anything about--not shoo it away, not scare it away,

If she took no action at all to get the pig off her property, then she was allowing it to stay on her property (which she was, as she videotaped it). Pig was therefore not 'illegally' on her property.

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

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

Yes, the pig was illegally on her property. If someone breaks into your home, and you don't do anything about it but scream, is he or she there "legally?" Come on. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about.

[–] Syn84 8 years ago

I'm pretty sure that the law is not the same for people and animals.

If you invite your neighbor's dog to your home and he injures your dog, your neighbor is not responsible since you invited his dog in the house (at least in JJ's court).

However, if you invite your neighbor to your home and he injures you - he's still responsible.

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

[–] lehanh1648 8 years ago

How did she invite the pig onto her property? By putting up two fences? By not immediately putting her hands on a strange and possibly dangerous animal immediately and kicking it off her property?

The neighbor was at fault. The pig was out of her control and trespassing.

[–] Syn84 8 years ago

Who said that she invited the pig onto her property?

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

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

Didn't you essentially just say that?

[–] lehanh1648 8 years ago

Someone on this thread said she invited the pig on her property by not immediately kicking it off, I think it was pvd.

[–] lehanh1648 8 years ago

JJ has also ruled many times that if your animal is out of your control and causes injury to someone, then you're responsible.

The pig got into the neighbor's yard on its own, the neighbor wasn't pig-sitting with the consent of the owner.

If that had been the case, she would have been responsible. She isn't responsible for every stray animal that wanders into her yard.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

Someone on this thread said she invited the pig on her property by not immediately kicking it off, I think it was pvd.

I never said 'invited', I said she 'allowed it to stay' by not taking any actions to make it leave the property.

The pig got into the neighbor's yard on its own, the neighbor wasn't pig-sitting with the consent of the owner.

If that had been the case, she would have been responsible. She isn't responsible for every stray animal that wanders into her yard.

Again, let me emphasize - she is NOT responsible for the pig wandering onto her property. I agree.

However, she IS responsible for the well- being and safety of her dog, which means to get it out of harm's way - in this case 'the pig'. She didn't bother to do that, so therefore she is partly responsible for the dog's injury (IMO).

I think everyone keeps translating this as though I'm saying she's responsible for the pig - and I'm not. I'm saying she's responsible for the safety of her own dog (I've repeatedly said this), but not many are addressing that aspect.

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

[–] holbrookp 8 years ago

A person in your home knows they're there illegally and by refusing to leave is breaking the law. An animal is different because it can't understand it's there illegally and so leave because of that.

"All necessary truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

Whatever the case, she lost and was responsible for the dog's injuries. End of story.

[–] holbrookp 8 years ago

Indeed.

"All necessary truth is its own evidence." - Ralph Waldo Emerson

[–] Syn84 8 years ago

Whatever the case, she lost and was responsible for the dog's injuries. End of story.

So why are you on this discussion board then? Cases are done and over with. Why are you discussing them?

===
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

Yes, the pig was illegally on her property. If someone breaks into your home, and you don't do anything about it but scream, is he or she there "legally?" Come on. Just admit you don't know what you're talking about.

Screaming is doing something about it.

If someone breaks into your home and you follow him around with a video camera as you're being entertained by the situation, you are allowing them to stay.

I guess you can't differentiate the two?

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

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

Hey, relax. It doesn't matter. The defendant lost, she was at fault, and she had to pay the bills.

And for the record, videotaping a home intruder doesn't mean you're "welcoming him in." That's just stupid. You're getting a record of his being there. Is that so hard for you to figure out?

[–] Noelle111 8 years ago

The pig had already been on her property before. She said that the pig was not aggressive. That should of been a warning to the owners to have a more secure fence so it did not happen again. She pulled out her camera because she wanted evidence that the pig was there yet again. You actually think this owner put her own pet on purpose under harms way for a few hundred dollars? Bottom line if my dog got out of my fence and went and bit a child or another animal I am responsible, even if it was filmed. Thats the law. That's why she ruled the way she did. I do not think she thought that pig would be aggressive, but thats besides the point your animal your responsibility.

[–] revell 8 years ago

I think it was really strange that she was taking a video while the pig was that close to her dog. Why on earth wouldn't she try to call away, or move or pick up her own dog???

That being said, the pig owner was on notice that it had gotten out before and she should have secured her own property better. JJ absolutely made the right call, the defendant's pig was out of her control and caused injury, she was responsible for vet bills.

[–] pvd295 8 years ago

I think it was really strange that she was taking a video while the pig was that close to her dog. Why on earth wouldn't she try to call away, or move or pick up her own dog???

That's what I'm saying. If a strange animal came on to my property while one of my dogs was in the yard, my first reaction / priority would be to get my dog to a safer place - whether it be in the house, the garage, etc. and away from the animal.

I wouldn't grab by cell phone and take a video of the animal coming closer to my dog. That's ridiculous! Her priority and responsibility is to her pet - not a video camera.

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

[–] ScaryMary123 8 years ago

Whatevs. She still lost the case. The end.

[–] lehanh1648 8 years ago

I agree. Filming it for whatever reason wasn't the best idea, but the pig owner is at fault for not ensuring the pig stayed where it belonged.

There could have been small children playing out there. If the pig attacked or bit them, the situation would have gotten really ugly.