Did I just see Judge Judy make yet another bad ruling?

[MrRational]

The defendant has a lease on a garage for two months.
She comes home, opens the garage door to park her car, and finds two motorcycles in her garage.
She attempts to move them in order to park her car, the motorcycle falls over incurring $1,400 worth of damage.
The apartment management company, had mistakenly just leased the same garage space to the motorcycle owner, who is now the plaintiff suing the defendant for the damages.
Judge Judy decided that the management company had just made a mistake, and the defendant did not have the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and was therefore liable for the damages.
It is my belief that the defendant was the rightful lessee of the garage, had the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and that the management company was negligent and should be held responsible for the damages.
So who's right? Judge Judy or me?

 

[cbg]

In my opinion, Judge Judy was correct.

 

[Proserpina]

The defendant has a lease on a garage for two months.
She comes home, opens the garage door to park her car, and finds two motorcycles in her garage.
She attempts to move them in order to park her car, the motorcycle falls over incurring $1,400 worth of damage.
The apartment management company, had mistakenly just leased the same garage space to the motorcycle owner, who is now the plaintiff suing the defendant for the damages.
Judge Judy decided that the management company had just made a mistake, and the defendant did not have the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and was therefore liable for the damages.
It is my belief that the defendant was the rightful lessee of the garage, had the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and that the management company was negligent and should be held responsible for the damages.
So who's right? Judge Judy or me?

Like this actually matters? It's not as if it's an actual judging situation.

(It's arbitration dressed up)

But since the question was asked, I agree with cbg. It's an unfortunately commonly held myth that one can legally benefit from someone else's error and in this situation the defendant is absolutely in the wrong.

 

[sandyclaus]

The defendant has a lease on a garage for two months.
She comes home, opens the garage door to park her car, and finds two motorcycles in her garage.
She attempts to move them in order to park her car, the motorcycle falls over incurring $1,400 worth of damage.
The apartment management company, had mistakenly just leased the same garage space to the motorcycle owner, who is now the plaintiff suing the defendant for the damages.
Judge Judy decided that the management company had just made a mistake, and the defendant did not have the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and was therefore liable for the damages.
It is my belief that the defendant was the rightful lessee of the garage, had the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and that the management company was negligent and should be held responsible for the damages.
So who's right? Judge Judy or me?

In my opinion, Judge Judy was correct.

Like this actually matters? It's not as if it's an actual judging situation.

(It's arbitration dressed up)

But since the question was asked, I agree with cbg. It's an unfortunately commonly held myth that one can legally benefit from someone else's error and in this situation the defendant is absolutely in the wrong.

I'd also have to concur.

BOTH tenants felt that they had a right to use the garage they rented from management. Yes, management screwed up, but that did not give the tenant the right to move the other tenant's motorcycles. They had the right to approach management and have them correct their mistake, and they had the right to approach the other tenant and ask THEM to move their motorcycles. By taking it upon themselves and moving the motorcycles, they assumed the risk of doing so - including the realized possibility that they would do something wrong and damage the motorcycles. The tenant SHOULD be held liable for the damages they caused to the motorcycle that fell, knowing and accepting the risk.

This is not to say that I agree with Judge Judy all of the time. There are a great deal of times when she makes half-assed or one-sided decisions which seem to be based in nothing but her opinion instead of applicable law. As has been stated, her role is no longer that of a judge, but that of an arbitrator. Arbitrators can tend to make a lot of decisions based on their experience and not always based in law.

 

[Ladyback1]

Just as an aside: Unless the bikes are ultra-light bikes, no one should attempt to move a motorcycle if they do not know what they are doing!

 

[justalayman]

The defendant has a lease on a garage for two months.
She comes home, opens the garage door to park her car, and finds two motorcycles in her garage.
She attempts to move them in order to park her car, the motorcycle falls over incurring $1,400 worth of damage.
The apartment management company, had mistakenly just leased the same garage space to the motorcycle owner, who is now the plaintiff suing the defendant for the damages.
Judge Judy decided that the management company had just made a mistake, and the defendant did not have the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and was therefore liable for the damages.
It is my belief that the defendant was the rightful lessee of the garage, had the right to attempt to move the motorcycles, and that the management company was negligent and should be held responsible for the damages.
So who's right? Judge Judy or me?

are you a law student? If so, listen very very well to your instructors/professors. Maybe they can get you to understand why you are wrong.

While the car owner may have had a right to move the motorcycles, they had no right to deny liability for any damage they cause.




I bet you are also the kind of guy that thinks that in an accident between a moving vehicle and an illegally parked car the owner of the parked car is liable since they had no legal right to be where they were.

 

[latigo]

Just as an aside: Unless the bikes are ultra-light bikes, no one should attempt to move a motorcycle if they do not know what they are doing (?)

Unless the person attempting to move the bike was sleep walking, wouldn't it be unusual if they didn't "KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING"?

Like perhaps a conscious awareness that they were attempting to move the bike?

Geez!

 

[Zigner]

Unless the person attempting to move the bike was sleep walking, wouldn't it be unusual if they didn't "KNOW WHAT THEY ARE DOING"?

Like perhaps a conscious awareness that they were attempting to move the bike?

Geez!

On the off chance that you aren't joking...

I'm sure the awareness of what was going on isn't what was being referred to. Rather, it is being said that if one doesn't have the proper skill & knowledge on the proper way to move a motorcycle, one should not move a motorcycle.

If you were joking...ahhh, I see what you did there!

 

[tranquility]

I don't think we have the answer with these facts. Since it is Judge Judy, I will assume not homework. If it were homework, it would be a discussion type question.

The possessor of the garage is the first person to have rented the space. It is theirs. The second rental person does not gain possession, but could be liable for damages caused to the possessor from trespassing. Here there seems none. The management company could be liable for some damages for the breach of the lease with the first person.

Now, to the motorcycles. The motorcycles sitting on the possessor's property if left alone would engender no liability on the part of the possessor. Once the possessor exerted some manner of control over the property, a bailment was created solely for the benefit of the bailor. This is much akin to a wallet left on the table in a restaurant. (At least from the possessor's point of view. The liability to the management company is different.) If the possessor leaves it there they have no duty. If the possessor picks it up and puts it in the lost and found box, they have taken on the common law duty of slight care to the article and a duty to redeliver it to the bailor. (Not that they have to try and return it. It's just they might have liability if they give it to the wrong person.)

The question is, did the possessor use slight care in the attempted movement of the motorcycle? That is the factual question Judge Judy decided. The defendant is not strictly liable for the damage. Nor would they be liable if they failed to use the usual negligence standard of ordinary care. They must be found grossly negligent to be liable. I accept the view of some that anyone attempting to move a motorcycle without experience is not using slight care. Just as I could accept the alternate position.

 

[latigo]

On the off chance that you aren't joking...

I'm sure the awareness of what was going on isn't what was being referred to. Rather, it is being said that if one doesn't have the proper skill & knowledge on the proper way to move a motorcycle, one should not move a motorcycle.

If you were joking...ahhh, I see what you did there!

How about an elephant (unless one happens to a mahout, an oozie or "Jungle Jim")?