Judge Judy Season 19 Episode 90 Judge Judy's Lessons in Dentistry!; Rottweiler Puppies Hit by Car!

Judge Judy's Lessons in Dentistry!; Rottweiler Puppies Hit by Car! is the 90th episode of season 19 of the popular courtroom show Judge Judy. The first case in this episode involves two former best friends who are now suing each other over a dental treatment gone wrong. The plaintiff claims that the defendant, who is a dental hygienist, recommended her to a dentist who gave her a botched root canal, causing her extreme pain and financial loss. The defendant denies responsibility, arguing that she only made the referral, and that the plaintiff failed to follow proper aftercare instructions.

Judge Judy, who is known for her no-nonsense approach to justice, starts by scolding both parties for their poor communication and lack of basic dental knowledge. She quizzes them on common dental terms and procedures, and uses her own experience as a former family court judge to emphasize the importance of informed consent and clear documentation in any medical setting. She also makes it clear that she is not a dentist herself, and that she'll base her ruling solely on the evidence presented and the credibility of the witnesses.

The plaintiff presents photos of her swollen gums and teeth, as well as receipts for the dental work she had to undergo to fix the root canal. She also argues that the defendant should have alerted her to the risks and complications of the procedure, and that she should have been referred to a more experienced and reputable dentist. The defendant counters that the plaintiff signed a consent form that absolved her of any liability, and that she referred the plaintiff to a dentist who was part of her own plan, and who had good online reviews.

Judge Judy examines the consent form and notes that it only pertains to the risks inherent in any dental procedure, not to any negligence or malpractice by the dentist. She also asks the defendant why she didn't ask more questions about the plaintiff's symptoms and medical history, and why she didn't follow up with her after the procedure. The defendant admits that she should have been more proactive, but says that the plaintiff also failed to disclose some of her symptoms and discomfort.

In the end, Judge Judy finds that the defendant breached her duty of care to the plaintiff, by not disclosing enough information and not doing enough due diligence in selecting a dentist. She orders her to pay the plaintiff the full cost of the dental work, plus a small amount of punitive damages for her disregard of the plaintiff's health and welfare.

The second case in the episode involves a heartbreaking incident where two Rottweiler puppies got hit by a car, and their owners are now fighting over who is responsible for the medical bills and the emotional trauma. The plaintiffs are a couple who had bought the puppies as a gift for their daughter, and who now face thousands of dollars in vet bills and lost wages. They claim that the defendant, who is the driver of the car that hit the puppies, was speeding and distracted, and that he never stopped to help or offer assistance.

The defendant, who is an elderly man, counters that he was not at fault, and that he only realized he had hit something when he saw the plaintiffs waving their arms and shouting. He also argues that the puppies had wandered onto the street and that he couldn't have avoided them in time. He says that he did offer to pay for some of the vet bills, but that the plaintiffs refused and started harassing him and his family.

Judge Judy, who is a known animal lover and advocate, starts the case by reminding all parties that pets are not property, but sentient beings with rights and feelings. She notes that while accidents do happen, drivers have a legal duty to drive safely and attentively, and to stop and render aid if they hit anything. She also asks the plaintiffs to provide proof of their damages, and to explain why they refused the defendant's offer to pay part of the bills.

The plaintiffs present photos and receipts for the puppies' medical treatment, as well as witness statements from their neighbors who saw the incident and heard the puppies yelping. They also argue that they had to take time off work and suffer emotional distress, as the puppies had become part of their family and their daughter's therapy. The defendant admits that he was not driving under the speed limit, but denies that he was distracted or reckless. He says that he has a clean driving record and that he's willing to pay for his fair share of the bills.

After a tense and emotional exchange, Judge Judy arrives at a ruling that balances the legal and moral obligations of all parties. She finds that the defendant was negligent by not stopping and checking on the puppies, but that the plaintiffs also contributed to their injuries by not supervising them properly. She orders the defendant to pay half of the vet bills, as well as a small amount of damages for his lack of compassion and remorse. She also advises the plaintiffs to be more responsible and informed pet owners, and to teach their daughter the value of empathy and resilience.