Hot Bench Season 2 Episode 84 Spare the Dog? Pay the Vet Bill!

In season 2 episode 84 of the court show Hot Bench, titled "Spare the Dog? Pay the Vet Bill!," three judges preside over a case involving a dog and a vet bill.

The episode opens with plaintiff Pamela explaining that she bought a dog from defendant Davina for $300. Pamela took the dog to the vet shortly after bringing her home and was informed that the dog had heartworms. The vet bill totaled $1,200. Pamela claims that Davina promised to pay half of the vet bill, but has not done so. Davina denies making any such promise and claims that Pamela was aware of the dog's heartworm condition before purchasing her.

The three judges, Tanya Acker, Patricia DiMango, and Michael Corriero, hear both sides of the case and ask questions to clarify the details. Pamela presents evidence of a text message exchange with Davina in which they discussed splitting the vet bill, but Davina argues that the context of the messages is unclear.

The judges also question Pamela about her knowledge of heartworms and whether she had inspected the dog before purchasing her. Pamela admits that she had not inspected the dog and did not know much about heartworms.

Davina argues that she should not be responsible for the entire vet bill because Pamela knowingly bought a dog with heartworms. She also claims that Pamela did not properly care for the dog after bringing her home.

As the judges deliberate, they consider the conflicting stories and evidence presented by both parties. They also discuss the issues of pet ownership and responsibility for vet bills.

In the end, the judges reach a verdict and issue a ruling on who is responsible for paying the vet bill. The decision is based on the evidence presented and the arguments made by both sides.

Overall, "Spare the Dog? Pay the Vet Bill!" is a compelling episode of Hot Bench that explores the challenges of pet ownership and the responsibilities that come with it. The case highlights the importance of clear communication and expectations when buying or selling a pet, as well as the importance of proper care and treatment for animals. The judges' decision provides a fair and just outcome for both parties while emphasizing the need for accountability in pet ownership.