Judge Judy Season 17 Episode 77 Pit Bull Gunfire; Baby Not on Board

In season 17, episode 77 of Judge Judy, titled "Pit Bull Gunfire; Baby Not on Board," two cases are brought to the courtroom that involve serious and emotional situations.

The first case involves a woman who is suing her former landlord for negligence. The plaintiff claims that she was living in an apartment complex with her young child and was repeatedly harassed by two pit bulls that were owned by another tenant. The dogs allegedly scared her and her child, and at one point, she claims they even charged at them. The plaintiff alleges that she complained to the landlord multiple times but nothing was done to remove the dogs or improve safety measures.

One day, when the plaintiff was walking to her car, the dogs allegedly began barking and chasing her. In an attempt to protect herself and her child, she pulled out a handgun and fired a warning shot. The gunshot caused damage to the complex's glass door, leading to the plaintiff being charged with reckless endangerment and criminal mischief. The plaintiff is now suing the landlord for $5,000, claiming that they failed to provide a safe environment for her and her child.

The defendant, the former landlord, denies any negligence on their part. They claim that they were not made aware of any complaints about the dogs until the day of the incident. They also argue that the plaintiff acted recklessly by firing a gun and causing damage to the property.

The second case involves a woman who is suing her former friend for a breach of contract. The plaintiff claims that she loaned her friend money to purchase a car under the agreement that the friend would make monthly payments to her. The friend allegedly stopped making payments after a few months, resulting in the plaintiff's car being repossessed. The plaintiff is now seeking $1,500 to cover the remaining balance on the loan.

The defendant, the former friend, admits to borrowing money from the plaintiff but claims that she was unable to make payments due to financial hardship. She also argues that the plaintiff promised to forgive the loan if the friend agreed to work for her in a specific role, which the defendant claims she did.

Both cases involve emotional and serious situations, and Judge Judy must carefully consider the evidence presented to make a fair and just ruling.