Judge Mathis Season 16 Episode 107 Episode 107

Judge Mathis season 16 episode 107, titled "Episode 107," focuses on two feuding neighbors who have brought their dispute to the courtroom. The plaintiff alleges that the defendant's dog attacked her, causing serious injury and medical bills.

As the episode begins, Judge Mathis introduces the case and notes that it's one of the largest medical bills he's seen in his courtroom. He warns the audience that they may find some of the footage of the plaintiff's injuries disturbing.

The plaintiff, a petite woman in her sixties, takes the stand and recounts the incident. She explains that she was walking her own small dog on a leash when the defendant's dog charged at them. She says the dog bit her in the leg and wouldn't let go despite her efforts to pull it off.

We see photos of the plaintiff's injuries, which include deep puncture wounds and substantial bruising. She says that the bite caused nerve damage and that she's had to undergo surgery and physical therapy. She estimates her medical bills to be around $30,000 and says that the dog's owner hasn't offered to pay anything.

Next, the defendant takes the stand. He's a burly man in his forties who seems defensive from the outset. He argues that his dog was on a leash and that the plaintiff's dog provoked it. He claims that the plaintiff yanked her dog out of his own dog's mouth, causing the bite to occur.

Judge Mathis is skeptical of the defendant's version of events, pointing out that the plaintiff's dog is much smaller and less likely to provoke an attack. He also notes that it's the defendant's responsibility to control his dog, regardless of any provocation.

The defendant becomes increasingly agitated as the hearing continues. He insists that he doesn't owe the plaintiff anything and that he doesn't have the money to pay her medical bills even if he did. At one point, he accuses the plaintiff of lying about her injuries and says that he could have photoshopped the pictures of her wounds.

Judge Mathis admonishes the defendant for his behavior and reminds him that he's under oath. He also reminds him that he can't just deny responsibility for his dog's actions. He orders the defendant to pay the plaintiff's medical bills and an additional sum for her pain and suffering.

The second case in the episode involves a dispute over a loan between a landlord and a tenant. The landlord alleges that the tenant borrowed $5,000 from him for a business venture but never paid it back. The tenant argues that the money was a gift, not a loan, and that the landlord is lying.

The landlord presents a written agreement that he says the tenant signed, promising to repay the money within six months. He also provides bank statements showing that the tenant made several large withdrawals around the time that he allegedly received the loan.

The tenant says that he never signed any agreement and that the landlord is trying to scam him. He claims that the landlord was always pressuring him for money and that he only took the alleged loan because he felt he had no other choice.

Judge Mathis looks over the evidence and remarks that the case is a classic he-said-she-said scenario. He notes that there's no concrete proof that the money was a loan or a gift and that both parties seem to have their own version of events.

In the end, Judge Mathis orders the tenant to pay back the $5,000, plus interest. He acknowledges that the case is difficult to prove one way or the other but notes that there's enough evidence to suggest that the money was a loan and not a gift.

Overall, Judge Mathis season 16 episode 107 is a tense and emotional episode that deals with two serious legal matters. The case of the dog attack highlights the importance of responsible pet ownership and the consequences that can result when owners fail to control their animals. The loan dispute, meanwhile, underscores the need for clear documentation and communication when it comes to financial transactions. Throughout the episode, Judge Mathis provides calm and reasoned guidance and serves as a model of fairness and impartiality.