In all honesty, I would be backing into my driveway so that I can see driving into traffic when leaving the house - especially with precious cargo in the car.
That’s how you should. It’s illegal to reverse out of a drive into a busy road where I live. You have your reverse in. Getting her premy story in there was redundant. If she has babes that premature you’d be reversing into your drive to pull out front first. She’s a horrible lady tbh saying he did it in on purpose…
You are so inhuman. She was not squeezing the preemies story, she has triplets, and they tend to be born in the eight month and she lost one of them. You should think before you comment on the loss of a child at childbirth. Shame on you.
@@trekgirl65that’s got nothing to do with the accident. It didn’t matter if she was heading to Pizza Hut, she backed into him. She wanted to try to use that story for empathy mother to mother.
@@trekgirl65 I wasn’t commenting on the loss of a child so stop reaching. She was definitely trying to tell that story in order to get sympathy to win her case which didn’t work.
@trekgirl65 And yet it has NOTHING to do with getting rear ended or any other traffic/moving violations. It's a sympathy play, not a necessary detail. Period.
Like the Judge said, that photo is the clincher, and the defendant is a fool to present it as evidence. Her insurance company looked at that same photo and offered her only 15% on her claim, so that should have been a clue that she was mostly at fault.
well the guy keeps hitting the back of other vehicles so i can kind of understand her suspicion since just 2 years prior the guy did it to someone else , he needs to pay attention to what is in front of him better if he is gonna ride a motorcycle . bad verdict .
well 90 percent of the time it always determined that its the fault of the person who rear ended the other person so i believe that the plaintiff was not paying attention and not looking straight ahead at the time that he was a certain distance from the plaintiff and then all the sudden he saw a vehicle right in front of him and he hit the defendant . when u ride a motorcycle u have to pay better attention than others because its harder for others to see u and this is another bad verdict by this judge .
@ She backed out of a driveway, crossing over a double solid line, onto a main thoroughfare, into oncoming traffic - the judge got it right. If you have one, please consider turning in your drivers license to the closest DMV or police station. Thank you. 👮🏻♂️🚓🚨
@@porridgesilt the judge failed to consider the fact that the photo indicated that the defendant was already fully out of her driveway when the plaintiff who was not paying attention rear ended her . if the plaintiff was paying attention and looking straight ahead then he would have avoided the collision by either stopping his motorcycle or steering away from the defendant to avoid a collision . its common sense . this judge totally got it wrong .
@marleonetti7 She did not have the right of way. Drivers that are on the road have the right of way, whether she gunned it out of her driveway or pulled out slowly, he had the right of way. That's why her own insurance would only offer 15%, she was definitely at fault.
Plaintiff was the perfect litigant. He allowed defendants to insult and slander him, and he did not react or interrupt. Shame on defendant and her husband. Defendant with her premature twins in the car, did not see the motorcycle and she pulled right out in front of him. This is the boon of motorcyclists everywhere. Car drives are looking for other cars and they don't see anything else, i;e., cyclists and motorcyclists
First you claim the plaintiff was a perfect litigant, then you bash her, like a Trumper. You also claimed the plaintiff was the defendant. LMAO! Plaintiff is the one who brought on the lawsuit and the defendant is the one who did wrong. Best you learn a lot more about court before you comment on the wrong side again. Bye.
@@lauraanne5175 BeterAvid was wrong on his/her comment. Had bashed the wrong side and forgot that she the plaintiff checked the road before pulling out. The defendant came out of nowhere, as some like him do.
@@trekgirl65 You are the one who is very confused. Not me. The Plaintiff (the motorcyclist) IS the perfect litigant. The Defendant (the b!tch who did not see him and backed into him) is the one who insulted and slandered the Plaintiff (the guy the motorcyle) and he (the plaintiff on the motorcyle) did not react or interrupt the abuse he was getting from the defendant (the b!tch in the car). I hope this helps your obvious confusion. When I say plaintiff, I mean the plaintiff and when I say defendant, I mean the defendant. Eazy Peazy Lemon Squeezy.
@@trekgirl65- Too busy worrying about some stranger on the net talking about a court case if they’re a “Trumper” to clearly note that he, motorcycle guy, is the plaintiff and not her, SUV gal, who was the defendant. Also vehicles don’t “come out of nowhere” no matter the saying. If he was there when she (again, the defendant) backed out then he was coming when she looked. She simply made a mistake and didn’t see him or worse didn’t look like she claimed.
Good job, judge. The ruling is correct. The pictures say it all. Congratulations, buddy! It is sickening that she mentioned that he did it on purpose. She seems to have an attitude issue.
And he didn’t have an attitude problem? He got off his bike and he started cursing her, then he complained because she didn’t ask how he was. Obviously, he didn’t ask how she was. And just based on his sense of entitlement, I want him to lose.
The defendant should have counter sued claiming he had the "last clear chance" to stop. Just as much as the judge thinks the photo and road proves guilt on the defendant side, it also shows that the biker was most likely speeding and would have been able to stop in time. If she had enough time to back a truck all the way out, he wasn't paying attention or speeding.
She made sure it was clear, but NEVER saw him from her huge SUV until he threw his hands up and yelled after she backed into his lane and caused the accident.....
The lady didn’t see the guy coming, and she backed out in front of him- he is oncoming traffic. He obviously was close enough to hit her. Her fault 100%.
I’m not sure if there was a 20mph speed limit, looks like there was. If he exceeded that, it would place the fault almost entirely on him. It’s 20 mph for a reason then. I agree though that she backed out and he came along and collided into her. Again, looks like speeding on his part.
I hate when people use their kids or other emotional stuff to try and sway the judge. The whole summary about her kids has NOTHING to do with her poor driving. I REALLY hate shit like that.
Yeah she was taking it too far and kept insisting on telling the premie story. She could have said my children were in the car and I was being extra careful
Those signs... top one is "slippery when wet", the other is a curve in the road... which is actually in one of the Defendants' pictures... you can see the curve further up from her house... You don't back out of a driveway and just sit in the middle of the road like she said she did... you can see the angle of her vehicle, and she hadn't straightened out her wheel either... She probably didn't even see the motorcycle... too busy with her twins in the backseat... You don't "slam" on the brakes while driving a motorcycle unless you want to go over the handlebars...
TBR, it wasn't "in sight" because she admitted she never saw him even after the accident until he threw his hands up and yelled. She needs a smaller vehicle. And to stop Munchausening her poor three year olds who have been through more than enough already.
TBR, it wasn't "in sight" because she admitted she never saw him even after the accident until he threw his hands up and yelled. She needs a smaller vehicle. And to stop Munchausening her poor three year olds who have been through more than enough already.
It happens a lot. My friend had a cab pull out in front of him. His front wheel was embedded in the rear door. He flew off the bike, somersaulted and landed on his feet on the other side of the cab. Had a broken toe. He's a lucky, lucky man. A lot of motorists don't see motorcycles, they are inattentive.
Backing such a big car out into the road is just an accident waiting to happen, she probably can't see in either direction until her backend is on the road. As for the damage to the motorbike, doesn't she understand the laws of physics, a 600lb motorcycle isn't going to fair well against a 5000lb SUV.
The defendant is never wrong in her mind. If he was speeding, the impact would have been a lot worse. Obviously, he was going at a low enough speed and hit the brakes in time to only get his wheel lodged under her bumper and not get thrown off the bike. None of her defense makes sense. I'm glad her attempt at emotionally manipulating the judge didn't work.
That’s like another case where a man turns left from a straight middle lane all the time because the left lane was a straight/turn and most people turn. He actually sued the woman who wasn’t turning but was continuing straight and even with the judge telling him it didn’t matter how often he’s able to make that turn without getting hit, he was wrong because it wasn’t a proper turn lane and she had the right of way to drive straight. He was still salty because he does that “all the time.” People don’t seem to understand that you can break a rule and take a risk as many times as you like, but if you eventually get into trouble you don’t get away with it because you got away with it before. You’re only lucky until the moment you’re not and then the consequences are still on you.
I say that exact same statement all the time "just because you do it everyday doesn't make it right!" And in reality it actually makes it worse because you're a habitual offender...
This is the reason when house hunting, my husband didn't want a house where your driveway connects to a busy street. It's too much to clear traffic just to get in and out of your driveway. You have to pay attention no matter what but living on what appears to be a main road is a bit much.
Why am i not surprised a non rider would say how a bike reacts/stops? Based on speed (like a semi truck), it takes time to stop a bike with a small tire patch to stop 600lbs of motion (bike and rider included).
That sign doesn't mean curvy road. The top sign means "slippery when wet" and the bottom sign simply means that the road curves to the right and back to the left. Nothing to do with hills
😅 curves to the left, curves to the right....curvy road or road curves ahead. A Hill generally has a slanted upward or downward line with a vehicle on it...depending on decline or incline
Did you read your own comment it makes zero sense, why did anyone like/agree with it lol? You first say the sign doesnt mean curvy road, and then later in next sentence you go on to say "the sign means the road curves to the right and back to the left". Which is the definiton of curvy road lol......what are you smoking?
I love how the plaintiff shut annoying curt up “have you ever rode on a motorcycle?” 😂 of course he hasn’t that’s why he doesn’t know anything. I swear curt is so annoying I’m glad he doesn’t host for this show anymore.
On a motorcycle in order to stop quickly as possible without hurting yourself... You have to use both breaks. You might slide but you'll be in total control.
That surprised me more than anything. She backed into the oncoming lane over double solid lines and admitted she had just put her car into drive when he hit. She’s at fault 100% even without the photo.
I cannot believe this woman is raising two children. She’s a complete liar and if those children were injured, it would have been her fault. She shouldn’t be allowed to drive if she cannot take accountability for her faults.
Skid marks don't only happen when speeding. My electric scooter has left skid marks all over my kitchen floor after I test it out a repair. My scooter goes 55mph but not in the house lmao.
Skid marks happen due to friction from rubber happening fast. My friends and I used to do that with our sneakers on the gym floor for fun, so it doesn’t even need to be speedy, just abrupt lol
I have a hard time with everyone being puzzled over what the street sign meant. The road ahead is twisting and the recommended speed thru that part is 20mph.
Staten Island finest; he did it on purpose! First of all, you are wrong to begin with , backing out into oncoming traffic; you’re actually supposed to drove nose out.
She didn't see him - that is obvious. He didn't have time to stop. Also obvious. Except for her evidence the ruling may have gone differently. I think they call that irony. Or in this case - justice.
If the defendant didn't see the plaintiff before the collision, it was definitely her fault. He didn't just appear out of the thin air. This means that the road wasn't as clear as she said it was. She was probably also distracted because she should have heard a motorcycle approaching. The plaintiff probably thought that she had more time to beat the unexpected traffic but didn't know that it would take longer for her Eddie Bauer Expedition Extended Edition to move. That's a heavy vehicle. Thank goodness the accident wasn't worse.
The plaintiff is correct when he states that if he had been going any faster, he probably wouldn't be in court. His fender and tire went under her bumper. If he had been going any faster, his head would've been in her back window. The fact that there aren't any skid marks on the road doesn't mean that he didn't try to stop. He did hit his brakes but didn't have enough time to stop without hitting them so hard that it would have caused him to lay the bike down and end up sliding under her vehicle. He was put in the position where he had to make a split second decision, and he made the right one. I don't know if he was wearing a helmet or not but if he layed the bike down and slid he could very easily be looking at a lot more than just replacing a fender, which by the way are expensive. Sliding would have physically harmed him, and the defendant would be paying a lot more than she is. She got off easy and should've just paid the bill and been happy that she didn't do any other damage. A thousand dollars for a fender that will have to be customized to the color of the bike, a new tire, and possibly a rim is cheap. I pay over $250.00, just for the tire. It's ridiculous that motorcycle tires cost so much more than car tires and last for many fewer miles. Oh, the joys and risks of riding a motorcycle. 🙂
Her actions were not well thought out. First, if safety is truly her priority as she claims, why not back into her driveway? This approach would allow her to pull out onto the street more safely. Secondly, while reversing, she crossed a double yellow line, which is clearly against traffic rules.
I bet she was rushing to get to the appointment. It's not a coincidence that she mentions that she had a 2 o'clock appointment and left her house at 1:30. Why mention that. People tend to over explain or give extra information when they're not being completely truthful.
This defendant using the kids as leverage to get her way. The guy at the end was also kinda annoying claiming he was going faster than 20 and then nodding his head back and fourth.. like isn’t he supposed to be neutral?
You always know someone is in the wrong when they start their testimony appealing to emotion. Her with the preme’ baby crap! Also she was wrong backing into a lane across the dividing lines. That is unusual whereas him driving forward is usual.
Anyone else notice she tried to use her cars size as a slight excuse? Like, she emphasized, “I don’t have a “car,” I have a huge extended yadda yadda blah blah blah which is enormous.” Makes me believe because her vehicle is big and a motorcycle is small, she couldn’t see as clearly while in reverse and didn’t notice the plaintiff driving up the road. She wasn’t outright saying it, but as with her premie story and the plaintiffs prior accident, and that she does this all the time, she was trying to subtly drop every hit that no matter what her behavior should be excused even though she’s in the wrong.
The main issue here is she has no understanding that she shouldn't be backing into that far lane. It's a double yellow. She needs to back into the lane closest to her, proceed down the road to u-turn, etc. It's automatically her fault for crossing over double yellow lines, for starters; reversing just increases the percentage in the Plaintiff's favor.
" i take the most precaution when driving." Stated by a mother of 2 young kids. Ya ok, as if youre never distracted by your kids pulling out in a huge suv running into a motorcycle which is already hard to see as is let alone distracted.
Guy outside the room wasn't happy. Obviously he was on her side. Accusing him of going more than 20..... Have you ever been in a motorcycle? 😂 good for telling him that
Never back into traffic always drive out .same as parking lots back in so when you leave you can see the cars coming .also back into your garage I know somebody that took her garage door out 3times forgot to open the door
It is impossible for that type of motorcycle to travel fast up an incline with a guy that size on it. The Judge is correct. The plaintiff backed into oncoming traffic. And she said exactly how she caused the accident. She said that she was driving an Expedition which is a huge vehicle. She would not be able to see a low rider coming up a hill. He would be well below her view from her seat in the Expedition. And she admitted repeatedly that she did not see him. She is correct. Unfortunately, she not seeing him does not mean that he was not there.
I've been in a situation like this in a parking lot. Even if you're in the clear and you're backing out, people try to go around you as you're backing out
But then by definition you’re not in the clear. A vehicle with right of way has approached and while it may be polite for them to stop and wait the responsibility is yours to stop backing out and wait for them to pass
Not that the car was not straight, but that the wheels had not been straightened, which is what proves she had just turned onto the road. (No one totally straightens a car after reversal b4 heading off)
I do not believe a word out of the defendant's mouth. As a rider, there is NO WAY you stay sitting on your bike after an accident. Assuming you are not injured, You immediately get off the bike and check for damages. Been there. Done it. Aslo yes, it is easy to get $2K worth of damage to a motorcycle. You aren't paying for teh parts, you are paying for the service.
I actually think the judge got it wrong. It really does look like he did this on purpose. 20 mph. He could have easily stopped seeing her this far out already.
No I don't think he did it on purpose, but I don't think he was paying attention either. Yes he should of been paying more attention ,but she backed out into on coming traffic. Yes I do think it was avoidable on both sides.
He was still on the bike when the collision happened, he was not going that fast. She is driving a huge suv, kids in the car, therapy appointment, and backing out, a lot of red flags.Her fault.
Going 20 mph, can't a motorcycle pretty much stop on a dime? It's her fault for backing out on the road, but I'm not sure how he couldn't avoid her if he was going 20? Unless she backed out going 40 mph.
My driveway has blocked vision I always turn around so I don't back out. And by backing out she's going the wrong way on the far lane I vote guilty nobody see's motorcycles
Dude is a scammer. He described the hill being up against her driveway, given the pictures, it wasn’t so it wasn’t a ‘split second accident’. Also he was going 20 miles an hour and didn’t see someone backing out of their driveway. You just paid a con man and he will do it again.
I'm sure what happened is what happens all the time: He honked at her to let her know he was there as she was backing out and she ignored him or didn't hear him.
Don’t think she should be backing out or going forward crossing that yellow line. She needs to turn right and find her way back legally the way she needs to go.
In all honesty, I would be backing into my driveway so that I can see driving into traffic when leaving the house - especially with precious cargo in the car.
I live in a small Cul De Sac at the end and I still back into my driveway.
I hate seeing folks with large vehicles driving in instead of patiently backing in.... 🤷🏿♀️ Could've saved this issue
She was backing out to go to doctors' appointment, no need to back into her driveway, she would not get anywhere that way. LOL!
That’s how you should. It’s illegal to reverse out of a drive into a busy road where I live. You have your reverse in. Getting her premy story in there was redundant. If she has babes that premature you’d be reversing into your drive to pull out front first. She’s a horrible lady tbh saying he did it in on purpose…
Girl stop trying to squeeze that preemie story in😂😂
You are so inhuman. She was not squeezing the preemies story, she has triplets, and they tend to be born in the eight month and she lost one of them. You should think before you comment on the loss of a child at childbirth. Shame on you.
@@trekgirl65that’s got nothing to do with the accident. It didn’t matter if she was heading to Pizza Hut, she backed into him. She wanted to try to use that story for empathy mother to mother.
@@trekgirl65 I wasn’t commenting on the loss of a child so stop reaching. She was definitely trying to tell that story in order to get sympathy to win her case which didn’t work.
@@trekgirl65you’re proving the point, what does that have to do with this accident?? 🤦♂️🤦♂️
@trekgirl65 And yet it has NOTHING to do with getting rear ended or any other traffic/moving violations.
It's a sympathy play, not a necessary detail.
Period.
She lost me at "I think it was intentional"
Like the Judge said, that photo is the clincher, and the defendant is a fool to present it as evidence. Her insurance company looked at that same photo and offered her only 15% on her claim, so that should have been a clue that she was mostly at fault.
She's not a good person. To suggest he did it deliberately is just gross.
You are 100% correct. No one in their right might would intentionally run a motorcycle into a car.
Agreed. I hate when people wear giant crosses to appear righteous. Always the opposite.
well the guy keeps hitting the back of other vehicles so i can kind of understand her suspicion since just 2 years prior the guy did it to someone else , he needs to pay attention to what is in front of him better if he is gonna ride a motorcycle . bad verdict .
Its not without precedent.
@jvillebil13 i would suggest looking at moto vlog videos. There are some on TH-cam that re clearly intentional hits from motorcycles
we all knew how that would end. She didn't look properly before pulling out into traffic. She made a mistake and she needs to own up to it
I like how her pics proved his case
Hahaha!
liar. proved he lied
@@kyoto32001 liar. proved She lied
I get the feeling that nothing is ever her fault. 🙄
well 90 percent of the time it always determined that its the fault of the person who rear ended the other person so i believe that the plaintiff was not paying attention and not looking straight ahead at the time that he was a certain distance from the plaintiff and then all the sudden he saw a vehicle right in front of him and he hit the defendant . when u ride a motorcycle u have to pay better attention than others because its harder for others to see u and this is another bad verdict by this judge .
@ She backed out of a driveway, crossing over a double solid line, onto a main thoroughfare, into oncoming traffic - the judge got it right. If you have one, please consider turning in your drivers license to the closest DMV or police station. Thank you. 👮🏻♂️🚓🚨
@@porridgesilt the judge failed to consider the fact that the photo indicated that the defendant was already fully out of her driveway when the plaintiff who was not paying attention rear ended her . if the plaintiff was paying attention and looking straight ahead then he would have avoided the collision by either stopping his motorcycle or steering away from the defendant to avoid a collision . its common sense . this judge totally got it wrong .
@marleonetti7 She did not have the right of way. Drivers that are on the road have the right of way, whether she gunned it out of her driveway or pulled out slowly, he had the right of way. That's why her own insurance would only offer 15%, she was definitely at fault.
@@marleonetti7 LOL!! Wrong but very funny!
Plaintiff was the perfect litigant. He allowed defendants to insult and slander him, and he did not react or interrupt. Shame on defendant and her husband. Defendant with her premature twins in the car, did not see the motorcycle and she pulled right out in front of him. This is the boon of motorcyclists everywhere. Car drives are looking for other cars and they don't see anything else, i;e., cyclists and motorcyclists
Here Here!!!! Louder for those in the back! There should be more questions on drivers tests about all bikes on the road.
First you claim the plaintiff was a perfect litigant, then you bash her, like a Trumper. You also claimed the plaintiff was the defendant. LMAO! Plaintiff is the one who brought on the lawsuit and the defendant is the one who did wrong. Best you learn a lot more about court before you comment on the wrong side again. Bye.
@@lauraanne5175 BeterAvid was wrong on his/her comment. Had bashed the wrong side and forgot that she the plaintiff checked the road before pulling out. The defendant came out of nowhere, as some like him do.
@@trekgirl65 You are the one who is very confused. Not me. The Plaintiff (the motorcyclist) IS the perfect litigant. The Defendant (the b!tch who did not see him and backed into him) is the one who insulted and slandered the Plaintiff (the guy the motorcyle) and he (the plaintiff on the motorcyle) did not react or interrupt the abuse he was getting from the defendant (the b!tch in the car). I hope this helps your obvious confusion. When I say plaintiff, I mean the plaintiff and when I say defendant, I mean the defendant. Eazy Peazy Lemon Squeezy.
@@trekgirl65- Too busy worrying about some stranger on the net talking about a court case if they’re a “Trumper” to clearly note that he, motorcycle guy, is the plaintiff and not her, SUV gal, who was the defendant.
Also vehicles don’t “come out of nowhere” no matter the saying. If he was there when she (again, the defendant) backed out then he was coming when she looked. She simply made a mistake and didn’t see him or worse didn’t look like she claimed.
I live on a busy street. I often back into my front yard so I can pull out, rather than back out.
Good job, judge. The ruling is correct. The pictures say it all. Congratulations, buddy! It is sickening that she mentioned that he did it on purpose. She seems to have an attitude issue.
And he didn’t have an attitude problem?
He got off his bike and he started cursing her, then he complained because she didn’t ask how he was. Obviously, he didn’t ask how she was.
And just based on his sense of entitlement, I want him to lose.
The defendant should have counter sued claiming he had the "last clear chance" to stop. Just as much as the judge thinks the photo and road proves guilt on the defendant side, it also shows that the biker was most likely speeding and would have been able to stop in time. If she had enough time to back a truck all the way out, he wasn't paying attention or speeding.
When you build up a sob/sympathy story (i.e., her preemie babies) or talking about your habits and how you "always do it", you're lying!!!!!
Her MICRO preemies!! 🙄🤣🤣
She made sure it was clear, but NEVER saw him from her huge SUV until he threw his hands up and yelled after she backed into his lane and caused the accident.....
Good point. I completely missed that. She didn't see him even after they collided.
The lady didn’t see the guy coming, and she backed out in front of him- he is oncoming traffic. He obviously was close enough to hit her. Her fault 100%.
I’m not sure if there was a 20mph speed limit, looks like there was. If he exceeded that, it would place the fault almost entirely on him. It’s 20 mph for a reason then. I agree though that she backed out and he came along and collided into her. Again, looks like speeding on his part.
I hate when people use their kids or other emotional stuff to try and sway the judge. The whole summary about her
kids has NOTHING to do with her poor driving. I REALLY hate shit like that.
They’re used to using their kids as an excuse to act entitled. Good thing the court system doesn’t enable them!
Yeah she was taking it too far and kept insisting on telling the premie story. She could have said my children were in the car and I was being extra careful
Those signs... top one is "slippery when wet", the other is a curve in the road... which is actually in one of the Defendants' pictures... you can see the curve further up from her house...
You don't back out of a driveway and just sit in the middle of the road like she said she did... you can see the angle of her vehicle, and she hadn't straightened out her wheel either... She probably didn't even see the motorcycle... too busy with her twins in the backseat...
You don't "slam" on the brakes while driving a motorcycle unless you want to go over the handlebars...
The defendant might consider backing INTO her driveway, so that she could drive forward OUT of the driveway. So she doesn't kill someone next time.
Why back out of a driveway into a road?? Back into your driveway.
Hey y'all. Happy Saturday to you. Hope everyone had a wonderful Thanksgiving 🦃🦃🦃🦃🦃 and a safe one. Happy Holidays
"There were no cars in sight"...motorcycle?
TBR, it wasn't "in sight" because she admitted she never saw him even after the accident until he threw his hands up and yelled. She needs a smaller vehicle.
And to stop Munchausening her poor three year olds who have been through more than enough already.
TBR, it wasn't "in sight" because she admitted she never saw him even after the accident until he threw his hands up and yelled. She needs a smaller vehicle.
And to stop Munchausening her poor three year olds who have been through more than enough already.
@scotthewitt258 where is she Munchausening her twins? Lol
It happens a lot. My friend had a cab pull out in front of him. His front wheel was embedded in the rear door. He flew off the bike, somersaulted and landed on his feet on the other side of the cab. Had a broken toe. He's a lucky, lucky man. A lot of motorists don't see motorcycles, they are inattentive.
So everywhere else it is legal to go over a double solid line? She was at fault just by exiting in that direction.
Failed to pull out? She hardly knew him!
I read this in his voice
Now that's funny!
😂😂😂😂
I read it with Harvey's voice. 😂😂😂
Backing such a big car out into the road is just an accident waiting to happen, she probably can't see in either direction until her backend is on the road. As for the damage to the motorbike, doesn't she understand the laws of physics, a 600lb motorcycle isn't going to fair well against a 5000lb SUV.
The defendant is never wrong in her mind. If he was speeding, the impact would have been a lot worse. Obviously, he was going at a low enough speed and hit the brakes in time to only get his wheel lodged under her bumper and not get thrown off the bike. None of her defense makes sense. I'm glad her attempt at emotionally manipulating the judge didn't work.
Dummy def is so desperate to not lose!!
Grow up lady.
If i lived on a busy road like that i would back in when i park so when leaving there would be no issues like this.
He had to slow down considerably to not have completely wrecked his bike or flown off it, basic physics will tell you that
🤷🏿♀️ It's in front of you...
Just because she “does it everyday” doesn’t mean she’s right, her privilege is showing, ugh just take responsibility for your actions lady 🤦🏽♀️
That’s like another case where a man turns left from a straight middle lane all the time because the left lane was a straight/turn and most people turn. He actually sued the woman who wasn’t turning but was continuing straight and even with the judge telling him it didn’t matter how often he’s able to make that turn without getting hit, he was wrong because it wasn’t a proper turn lane and she had the right of way to drive straight. He was still salty because he does that “all the time.”
People don’t seem to understand that you can break a rule and take a risk as many times as you like, but if you eventually get into trouble you don’t get away with it because you got away with it before. You’re only lucky until the moment you’re not and then the consequences are still on you.
@ Well said, couldn’t agree more
I say that exact same statement all the time "just because you do it everyday doesn't make it right!" And in reality it actually makes it worse because you're a habitual offender...
This is the reason when house hunting, my husband didn't want a house where your driveway connects to a busy street. It's too much to clear traffic just to get in and out of your driveway. You have to pay attention no matter what but living on what appears to be a main road is a bit much.
Backing up on ongoing traffic is crazy especially with kids inside 😮
Motorcycles are invisible... People pull out in front of them all the time...
Why am i not surprised a non rider would say how a bike reacts/stops? Based on speed (like a semi truck), it takes time to stop a bike with a small tire patch to stop 600lbs of motion (bike and rider included).
Exactly. I'm not a rider, and I still understand physics.
Exactly
That sign doesn't mean curvy road. The top sign means "slippery when wet" and the bottom sign simply means that the road curves to the right and back to the left. Nothing to do with hills
😅 curves to the left, curves to the right....curvy road or road curves ahead.
A Hill generally has a slanted upward or downward line with a vehicle on it...depending on decline or incline
Did you read your own comment it makes zero sense, why did anyone like/agree with it lol? You first say the sign doesnt mean curvy road, and then later in next sentence you go on to say "the sign means the road curves to the right and back to the left". Which is the definiton of curvy road lol......what are you smoking?
@@joeymims5852probably her husband 😂
I love how the plaintiff shut annoying curt up “have you ever rode on a motorcycle?” 😂 of course he hasn’t that’s why he doesn’t know anything. I swear curt is so annoying I’m glad he doesn’t host for this show anymore.
Omg lady you stuffed up own it
'I don't have a car, I have a HUGE Eddie Bauer Expedition Extended which is enormous"😂 lady please!!
Thank you for uploading weekend videos!
Definitely her fault
On a motorcycle in order to stop quickly as possible without hurting yourself... You have to use both breaks. You might slide but you'll be in total control.
He didn't know that... 🤷🏿♀️
yeah i believe him
Wow the judge didnt mention the solid lines.
That surprised me more than anything. She backed into the oncoming lane over double solid lines and admitted she had just put her car into drive when he hit. She’s at fault 100% even without the photo.
@ashb7846 I think the judged missed cause she was done for the day lol. I love judge though!!
I cannot believe this woman is raising two children. She’s a complete liar and if those children were injured, it would have been her fault. She shouldn’t be allowed to drive if she cannot take accountability for her faults.
Skid marks don't only happen when speeding. My electric scooter has left skid marks all over my kitchen floor after I test it out a repair. My scooter goes 55mph but not in the house lmao.
Skid marks happen due to friction from rubber happening fast. My friends and I used to do that with our sneakers on the gym floor for fun, so it doesn’t even need to be speedy, just abrupt lol
this case has convinced me I need to back into my driveway from now on instead of backing out of the driveway.
I have a hard time with everyone being puzzled over what the street sign meant. The road ahead is twisting and the recommended speed thru that part is 20mph.
I wonder why litigants rarely used Google Earth back then to explain what the area looked like?
lol we didn’t have google earth back then 😂😂😂😂
@ Google Earth started in 2001. These are well after that date.
Yes we did. Google earth debuted in 2001 and this ep is from 2012…I wonder why it’s not used much in these cases either.
It’s not used because it wasn’t reliable and available everywhere. Yes it existed but wasn’t readily available like it is today.
@ how do you know if it was available where they live? GE was fully completed for the US in 2008.
Staten Island finest; he did it on purpose! First of all, you are wrong to begin with , backing out into oncoming traffic; you’re actually supposed to drove nose out.
The entire I don’t take chances with my premee baby’s! Lol! Trying to gain sympathy! Lol
She didn't see him - that is obvious. He didn't have time to stop. Also obvious. Except for her evidence the ruling may have gone differently. I think they call that irony. Or in this case - justice.
If the defendant didn't see the plaintiff before the collision, it was definitely her fault. He didn't just appear out of the thin air. This means that the road wasn't as clear as she said it was. She was probably also distracted because she should have heard a motorcycle approaching. The plaintiff probably thought that she had more time to beat the unexpected traffic but didn't know that it would take longer for her Eddie Bauer Expedition Extended Edition to move. That's a heavy vehicle. Thank goodness the accident wasn't worse.
The plaintiff is correct when he states that if he had been going any faster, he probably wouldn't be in court. His fender and tire went under her bumper. If he had been going any faster, his head would've been in her back window. The fact that there aren't any skid marks on the road doesn't mean that he didn't try to stop. He did hit his brakes but didn't have enough time to stop without hitting them so hard that it would have caused him to lay the bike down and end up sliding under her vehicle. He was put in the position where he had to make a split second decision, and he made the right one. I don't know if he was wearing a helmet or not but if he layed the bike down and slid he could very easily be looking at a lot more than just replacing a fender, which by the way are expensive. Sliding would have physically harmed him, and the defendant would be paying a lot more than she is. She got off easy and should've just paid the bill and been happy that she didn't do any other damage. A thousand dollars for a fender that will have to be customized to the color of the bike, a new tire, and possibly a rim is cheap. I pay over $250.00, just for the tire. It's ridiculous that motorcycle tires cost so much more than car tires and last for many fewer miles. Oh, the joys and risks of riding a motorcycle. 🙂
Who cares if you're twins were 2 inches long when they were born?? Has nothing to do with the case...
Speaking as a wide bodied individual…you have no business riding a motorcycle 😂
The Kid behind Harvey with Bulls hat on all crazy, wanting to look extra tough for camera! 🤣
Kurt was trying to catch him out at the end, but no dice!
Nobody drives the speed limit except some grannies. Not even cops!!!! Shut up Kurt.
Lol, Kurt was dumb in this one. He had nothing to say after 'no skid marks' 😂
I loved it😂😂😂
Right. He didn't have a response when the plaintiff asked him if he's ever been on a motorcycle. 😂😂😂
The defendant has some nerve !!
A little ping. More like a big ping!
Her actions were not well thought out. First, if safety is truly her priority as she claims, why not back into her driveway? This approach would allow her to pull out onto the street more safely. Secondly, while reversing, she crossed a double yellow line, which is clearly against traffic rules.
I bet she was rushing to get to the appointment. It's not a coincidence that she mentions that she had a 2 o'clock appointment and left her house at 1:30. Why mention that. People tend to over explain or give extra information when they're not being completely truthful.
Good point. I thought that was odd, too.
Agreed, and you’re exactly right.
This is why I would never buy a house on a Main Street. Too dangerous to get in and out the driveway.
People don’t see motorcycles. They do not train their mind to do so.
This defendant using the kids as leverage to get her way.
The guy at the end was also kinda annoying claiming he was going faster than 20 and then nodding his head back and fourth.. like isn’t he supposed to be neutral?
You always know someone is in the wrong when they start their testimony appealing to emotion. Her with the preme’ baby crap! Also she was wrong backing into a lane across the dividing lines. That is unusual whereas him driving forward is usual.
I always back IN to my driveway, so I never have to back out to the street.
she backed up in to oncoming traffic, what a bafoon
Anyone else notice she tried to use her cars size as a slight excuse? Like, she emphasized, “I don’t have a “car,” I have a huge extended yadda yadda blah blah blah which is enormous.”
Makes me believe because her vehicle is big and a motorcycle is small, she couldn’t see as clearly while in reverse and didn’t notice the plaintiff driving up the road. She wasn’t outright saying it, but as with her premie story and the plaintiffs prior accident, and that she does this all the time, she was trying to subtly drop every hit that no matter what her behavior should be excused even though she’s in the wrong.
The defendant showed up prepared. That’s how I would show up, no matter the outcome. You only lose the fights you don’t try.
Yeah, she lied her butt off. But that's the American way. Screw the other guy. smh
Or you can admit fault when it is your fault like an honorable person and taking responsibility.
Lady, if he wasn't going 20 mph, he would have been dead under your car. You have been paying for his funeral.
The main issue here is she has no understanding that she shouldn't be backing into that far lane. It's a double yellow. She needs to back into the lane closest to her, proceed down the road to u-turn, etc. It's automatically her fault for crossing over double yellow lines, for starters; reversing just increases the percentage in the Plaintiff's favor.
" i take the most precaution when driving." Stated by a mother of 2 young kids. Ya ok, as if youre never distracted by your kids pulling out in a huge suv running into a motorcycle which is already hard to see as is let alone distracted.
Guy outside the room wasn't happy. Obviously he was on her side. Accusing him of going more than 20..... Have you ever been in a motorcycle? 😂 good for telling him that
It's a motorcycle everything about a motorcycle expensive
Never back into traffic always drive out .same as parking lots back in so when you leave you can see the cars coming .also back into your garage I know somebody that took her garage door out 3times forgot to open the door
how does someone that old have young kids?
It is impossible for that type of motorcycle to travel fast up an incline with a guy that size on it. The Judge is correct. The plaintiff backed into oncoming traffic. And she said exactly how she caused the accident. She said that she was driving an Expedition which is a huge vehicle. She would not be able to see a low rider coming up a hill. He would be well below her view from her seat in the Expedition. And she admitted repeatedly that she did not see him. She is correct. Unfortunately, she not seeing him does not mean that he was not there.
It wasn’t an Escalade, it was an Eddie Bauer expedition. But it’s still a huge car.
@@stacybstacyb I knew it was some huge jeep with a name that started with E 😁. In any case, my point is still the same.
I've been in a situation like this in a parking lot. Even if you're in the clear and you're backing out, people try to go around you as you're backing out
I always park in the front spot so I can pull out instead of back out.
But then by definition you’re not in the clear. A vehicle with right of way has approached and while it may be polite for them to stop and wait the responsibility is yours to stop backing out and wait for them to pass
@@chelseac8855that part!
Maybe she has never had to have bodywork done, but just to get a small dent and scratch in my rear quarter panel fixed was $700
Some people (defendant) shouldn't drive and some people (defendant) can't take responsibility
Crossing double lines is illegal in Canada
It’s illegal in the US too!
Not that the car was not straight, but that the wheels had not been straightened, which is what proves she had just turned onto the road. (No one totally straightens a car after reversal b4 heading off)
A motorcycle is hard to stop in a split second. She must have backed out of her driveway fast, not giving him enough time to stop.
LOL he owned him in the exit interview.
He probably saw her and thought she'd stop for him.
My grandma told me that Amboy Road is windy because it used to be an old cow path.
Don’t know how it works in the US but in Canada it’s illegal to back out of a driveway onto any road
How do you get out then?
I do not believe a word out of the defendant's mouth. As a rider, there is NO WAY you stay sitting on your bike after an accident. Assuming you are not injured, You immediately get off the bike and check for damages. Been there. Done it. Aslo yes, it is easy to get $2K worth of damage to a motorcycle. You aren't paying for teh parts, you are paying for the service.
I did not know that about design immunity!
I actually think the judge got it wrong. It really does look like he did this on purpose. 20 mph. He could have easily stopped seeing her this far out already.
No I don't think he did it on purpose, but I don't think he was paying attention either. Yes he should of been paying more attention ,but she backed out into on coming traffic. Yes I do think it was avoidable on both sides.
It’s fascinating when people go against what the majority of comments say and what the judge says.
He was still on the bike when the collision happened, he was not going that fast. She is driving a huge suv, kids in the car, therapy appointment, and backing out, a lot of red flags.Her fault.
Going 20 mph, can't a motorcycle pretty much stop on a dime? It's her fault for backing out on the road, but I'm not sure how he couldn't avoid her if he was going 20? Unless she backed out going 40 mph.
At the end of the day, she crossed a double full line. Plainly illegal
If here were going more than 20 he would have gone to the hospital.
...Don't back into traffic, instead back into your driveway when you get home. Problem solved.
My driveway has blocked vision I always turn around so I don't back out. And by backing out she's going the wrong way on the far lane I vote guilty nobody see's motorcycles
Dude is a scammer. He described the hill being up against her driveway, given the pictures, it wasn’t so it wasn’t a ‘split second accident’.
Also he was going 20 miles an hour and didn’t see someone backing out of their driveway.
You just paid a con man and he will do it again.
I'm sure what happened is what happens all the time: He honked at her to let her know he was there as she was backing out and she ignored him or didn't hear him.
You cant drive in reverse on the road period. Case over, didnt need to be that long. Judge needs to take tips from Judge Judy.
Don’t think she should be backing out or going forward crossing that yellow line. She needs to turn right and find her way back legally the way she needs to go.
Just looking at these comments prove just how fkd our world is! No sympathy, empathy, or just good will...😢
Thought when going up a hill you slow down due to low visibility. But, the woman seems like a witch. I’ll get you my pretty.
Y couldn’t he have slowed down enough to avoid the accident if he was cruising