Judge Judy Season 19 Episode 3 Child's Dog-Bite Marks Disputed; Show Me the Money!

In season 19 episode 3 of Judge Judy, the case centers around a child who was bitten by a dog and the disagreement on the severity of the bite marks. The plaintiff, the child's mother claims that her son's injuries were severe and require medical attention, while the defendant, the dog's owner, argues that the bite marks were superficial.

The case begins with the plaintiff explaining that her child was playing in a park when the defendant's dog ran up to him and bit him on the arm. The plaintiff claims that the bite marks were deep and required medical attention, including a tetanus shot and antibiotics. She presents pictures of her son's wounds as evidence.

The defendant, however, argues that the wounds were superficial and that the child doctored them to make them appear worse than they were. He presents his own pictures of the bite marks, which show less severe wounds than the plaintiff's photos. He also argues that the child provoked the dog by throwing stones at it, which led to the attack.

Judge Judy listens to both sides and questions the plaintiff's son, who was present at the park when the incident occurred. He confirms that he did throw stones at the dog, but denies that he provoked it. The judge notes that the defendant's dog was not on a leash at the time of the incident, which is a violation of local laws.

The plaintiff argues that the defendant should be held responsible for her son's medical bills, which totaled $1,500. The defendant argues that the plaintiff should have been supervising her child better and that he should not be held responsible for her negligence.

In the second case presented in this episode, a plaintiff and defendant dispute the ownership of a car. The plaintiff claims that she paid for the car and has proof of ownership, while the defendant argues that the car was a gift from the plaintiff and that he has the right to keep it.

The plaintiff presents bank statements and receipts to prove that she paid for the car and has been making payments on it. The defendant argues that he has been making payments as well and that the car was a gift to him, which he has the right to keep.

Judge Judy listens to both sides and questions the defendant as to why he has not obtained his own proof of ownership, such as registering the car in his name. She notes that the plaintiff has provided concrete evidence of ownership, while the defendant has not.

The defendant argues that the car was a gift and that he did not think he needed to register it in his name. Judge Judy ultimately rules in favor of the plaintiff, who has proof of ownership and has been making payments on the car.

Overall, this episode highlights the importance of responsible pet ownership and the importance of having proof of ownership when disputes arise over property. Judge Judy provides fair and impartial rulings in both cases presented.