Miss Smith's '90s Chevy came back damaged after her fiancé Albert borrowed it. She says Miss Cornell is responsible and wants the repairs paid. Miss Cornell says she shouldn't pay anything, and she has a complaint of her own.
Cast your voteHer car came back damaged after her fiancé Albert borrowed it. She says Miss Cornell caused the collision and should cover the repairs.
In their favor
Against them
She says she owes nothing for the repairs. She points out that Miss Smith's version of events has already changed once, and says she is the one who was wronged.
In their favor
Against them
Tap your answer.
When Judge Judy asked Albert to explain, he said he parked in front of Miss Cornell's car and then backed into it.
Then came the surprise: he admitted he did it on purpose, twice, because he was upset to see another man driving Miss Cornell's car.
Judge Judy added Albert to the case as a co-defendant, since he had just admitted causing the damage.
Miss Smith then admitted she had told the police she was driving, and that Miss Cornell hit her car and left. She said she did it because Albert had a warrant.
Miss Cornell said that false report led to her spending a day and a night in jail, and she had to pay for childcare.
The person who causes damage on purpose is the one who pays for it. Albert's own words made him responsible, not Miss Cornell.
Telling the police a false story that gets someone arrested has a cost. That is why Miss Smith ended up owing Miss Cornell money on her counterclaim.
Lying to the police to protect someone can cost you far more than the claim you came to court to win.