seyms
|
posted on January 23, 2001 08:58:08 AM
Several months ago I posted about an expensive doll that was accidentally broken by a customer in a shop in rural NJ. The shop owner asked for payment ($850), was refused and called the NJ State police (as they, not local police) provide coverage for the small town. Case proceded to Small Claims docket when both parties were contacted by Judge Mills Lane who desired to hear the case on his television show. Case was heard, judgement rendered by judge Lane. The case will air on Channel 11 this Friday at 1PM. I am assured by the shop owner that this will be entertaining TV. For those that commented that I was making it all up, please enjoy the show. For the lawyers who offered comments, please enjoy the show.
|
seyms
|
posted on January 23, 2001 09:01:07 AM
Channel 11 in the New York City area will have the show. This is WPIX and may be a national cable offering-I don't know.
|
Zazzie
|
posted on January 23, 2001 09:12:00 AM
There was a similar case here a few years ago where something was broken---it ended up that the store owner needed to have store insurance against such loss and didn't---the customer didn't have to pay.
There was some other clause in his decision--but I don't remember what it was--but the gist of it had something to do with a store owner inviting the public into his establishment and that it was their responsiblilty to protect themselves and their customers against such damage.
|
rancher24
|
posted on January 23, 2001 09:37:14 AM
seyms...Thanx for the notification!...I remember when you "told" us the story...Will be very interesting to see the case with Judge "let's git it on" Mills!...Set the tivo to record!...
~ Rancher
|
seyms
|
posted on January 26, 2001 04:13:32 AM
Just a reminder to anyone interested: The case of the broken doll and the refusing to pay customer sued in Small Claims court is expected to be heard on the Judge Mills Lane TV program today sometime between 1-2PM. This is on WPIX in New York but WPIX may be a regional or national cable offering.
|
ExecutiveGirl
|
posted on January 26, 2001 05:32:27 AM
I'm in upstate NY - this episode shows this morning in 1 hour at 9:30AM (Eastern Time) and 1AM Saturday morning..
|
godzillatemple
|
posted on January 26, 2001 05:40:24 AM
Waitaminnut... Mills Lane is a real person? And he's actually a judge? And he really does say "let's git it on" in court?
And all this time I thought he was just an animated character on MTV's "Celebrity Deathmatch"....
Barry
---
The opinions expressed above are for comparison purposes only. Your mileage may vary....
|
ExecutiveGirl
|
posted on January 26, 2001 06:45:20 AM
Ok, just watched the episode. Want the results or do you want to watch it yourself to find out what happens?
BTW - I think his decision sucked.
Barry: Yes Judge Mills Lane is a real person and real judge! lol He's my favorite out of all the judges. And yes, he really says "let's get it on" at the beginning of every show! He was a boxing ref in real life too.
|
reddeer
|
posted on January 26, 2001 07:08:43 AM
Ya, let's hear the decision!
BTW - Mills Lane was a GREAT boxing ref & worked some of the major prize fights back in the 70's. I had no idea he was a judge?
|
BlondeSense
|
posted on January 26, 2001 08:44:18 AM
OK, will someone please 'splain what happens on the show for the benefit of those who aren't able to see it. Lets start with the basics - I assume the store owner sued the customer?
[ edited by BlondeSense on Jan 26, 2001 08:46 AM ]
|
seyms
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:16:26 AM
I'm the original poster.
Middle age couple come into antique store (very crowded on that particular day) and husband accidentally breaks an expensive doll that's out in the open in a very vunerable spot. Owner of store asks for payment, is refused, calls cops. Owner of store sues couple in Small Claims court in NJ. Judge Mills Lane calls both parties and everyone agrees to have case transfered to his show on TV. Producer pays "appearance " money to both sides and limos them into NY for the appearance and pays the final outcome. Outcome of the case amazed me as I thought the owner of the store had a very weak case. But remember that this is entertainment TV firstly when you watch the case. BTW, it goes on in 44 minutes from now.
|
BlondeSense
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:27:13 AM
Ya all gotta understand, where I live in rural Oklahoma we get two, count 'em, two whole TV stations so imagine my surprise when I actually saw this episode just a couple of minutes ago. Will wonders never cease!
But I'll wait till others have seen it, and let someone else spill the beans.
|
BlondeSense
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:33:15 AM
Ah, what the heck.
Judgement for the plaintiff. $800.00
That poor guy just rolled over and played dead.
|
Meya
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:36:16 AM
Doofus!! LOL
|
mivona
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:42:00 AM
ACK!
I hope the seller saved all the little broken doll bits for the guy who lost - after all, that's what he's paid for.
Jeez!
|
Meya
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:43:34 AM
$800 seems a tad high, the middle ground between the two appraisals would be $700.
Any shop owners here? What do you think?
|
sharkbaby
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:47:04 AM
Hi all!
Mills Lane was a very well known and outspoken (as you might imagine!) judge here in the town where I live...He's very well-thought-of in most circles. (Of course, there is that minority that, because of his outwardness, that dislike him-WHATEVER!) He's a very good judge and an excellent person!! Very tough, though! You won't see many "hand-slappings" come from him!
And is also a very well respected boxing referee!
[ edited by sharkbaby on Jan 26, 2001 09:48 AM ]
|
Damariscotta
|
posted on January 26, 2001 09:53:12 AM
In the real world, customer would not be held liable for accidental damage of this sort (unless it was deliberate or was told not to handle). If the item was placed in a location where it could be brushed off a shelf by a coat sleeve or tripped over, the shop owner is responsible.
All the clever "you break it, you bought it" signs in shops will not help you recover from accidental breakage.
Good idea: Make sure that you have proper insurance coverage in your shop, or are prepared to eat the loss.
Bad idea: Paying too much attention to decisions by pseudo-court tv programs.
|
sharkbaby
|
posted on January 26, 2001 10:00:31 AM
I'm also thinking that perhaps the judge should have (and maybe he did, I don't know) considered it a matter of shared liability. If, in fact, the piece was placed in a vulnerable spot in the store there might be some liability to the shopowner because of that.
Unfortunately, accidents DO happen, but there always has to be an assessment of liability just as in an auto accident. Of course a person doesn't necessarily cause the accident on purpose, but when it does happen someone has to be considered liable.
I (not knowing any more about this case than what I've read here, ok?) think I would like to have seen the liability split between the defendant and the plaintiff.
|
sg52
|
posted on January 26, 2001 11:12:12 AM
Bad idea: Paying too much attention to decisions by pseudo-court tv programs.
That's for sure. These guys have absolutely no requirement that their decisions be supportable by law. Their only requirement is that their show gets ratings.
Consider for the moment how many decisions made by real judges are obvious nonsense to most observers, but are quickly overturned. Judges frequently allow their emotions to make decisions, and when there's no appeal, the results can get pretty random.
The judge can be predisposed to like one side better, can come to like the plaintiff or defendant better, or can just adopt an analysis which "feels best". This is a very natural process which would affect all of us if we were to be judges, but it's why a legal system, to be fair, must have oversight.
sg52
|
