The issue is truck drivers get paid per job. Should have been a contract which stipulations he still gets paid. I don't agree with JJ's analogy of a surgeon either where they don't complete the job they don't get paid. They get paid regardless. I know someone who had to pay a specialist even though they couldn't complete the surgery as when they opened them up they needed to call in another specialist. They still got paid at least in part.
What I see is that the plaintiff had already spent 8 days on a 4 day job. These delays were the responsibility of the defendant. I feel the driver should be paid twice the original fee. His problem was in the way he explained it. This is the problem with representing yourself in front of someone like Judge Judy. If she doesn’t like the way you say something, she finds a way to rule against you regardless.
I tend to agree with her the vast majority of the time, and she does an excellent job of seeing through the games that people play. But she really had her head wrong on this affair. I get she's only human.
I agree. Yesterday we had a case where the woman was awarded $625 out of $1000 for work that she did even if she didn't finish everything. Something in the contract or written complaint makes me think she ruled this way, but I am totally sympathetic with the driver here. He should have gotten something. The whole towing situation was shady and hurt the defendant's credibility.
I agree as well. It’s a 30 yr old bus and it keeps breaking down. He knew he had to be there in order to reimburse insurance but he clearly knew he was not going to be there if he asked someone else to drive the bus. The bus keeps breaking down then the guy cannot complete the job. Should have at least gotten paid for some of his time.
I do think the driver got hosed on this. He might not have deserved the full amount of the job, but he did drive it to Phoenix even after dealing with multiple breakdowns.
I think he would have been if he hadn't left Phoenix the day after the breakdown. And I get it, this sounds like the trip from hell which was already way behind schedule because of factors out of his control. However, because he (understandably) had enough by that point he didn't wait until it was clear that he couldn't finish the job. If he had checked into a decent motel and put the bill and all his food costs on expenses I guarantee that the owner would have told him to come home as soon it was clear the bus wasn't drivable and he would have been paid. However, because he jumped the gun the owner could make a claim of job abandonment. JJ is usually good at awarding part payment to builders/decorators when they can show they did some of the items on a list of jobs. In this case there was only one task - get a bus from A to B - and that wasn't done.
I think I've always been able to understand JJ's decisions in some way. This one, however, makes absolutely no sense. The defendant bought a 30-year-old bus at 3% of its cost new and suckered the plaintiff into driving it, the defendant waited through repairs as it broke down across the country, and JJ wants to pay him for NONE of his time? Outrageous.
So he doesn’t get paid because he couldn’t drive it back due to it breaking down at least 4 times! He doesn’t control the weather but he also isn’t responsible for the mechanics of the bus, he is just a driver. He couldn’t predict that, he deserves to get at least partial payment.
Obviously, every time the weather gets out of the 60-80degree temperature range, every bus, diesel truck, and railroad locomotive in the world breaks down.
@@richardfabacher3705I'm not sure what your point is but that was a 29 year old bus and according to the mechanic it was hoses breaking and fuel line problems etc.. that is not something a driver can fix. Then to try to stick the driver with the towing fees because you got the wrong insurance is an ahole move! The driver should have been paid for the work he did. Companies sell these buses when they get too expensive to keep repairing and normally the buyer spends a lot of time and money on restoration before trying to drive it any distance.
@@shendisackett It's called SARCASM. Judy kept belittling the driver because she argued the delay WAS ALL BECAUSE OF WEATHER. I agree with you 100% the cheapskate a-hole got off easy and the driver got screwed doing 2-3 times the contract time and labor. But all Judy saw was that it was cold so the bus couldn't run. Act of God.
@@richardfabacher3705 you don't need to use capitals, sarcasm doesn't always come across in writing as people have told me plenty of times 😂 so now I add an emoji to make sure they get it! I don't know why she was so biased against the driver he came across as a nice guy but you're right she was belittling him. She also ignored the fact that he offered several times to go back and finish the journey once the bus was repaired.
That's not how it works. Some contracts you get paid by the job, others you get paid by the hour. His contract is paid by the job, he didn't complete the job, there are not other stipulations regarding an incomplete job
I'm not so sure about that. They get partial payment when the job done can actually be used. Leaving a stranded truck somewhere in the country might be more complicated or expensive to retrieve.
@@jemma-joon he couldnt complete the job because he didnt have a working bus to complete the job .. he;s supposed to wait 1 month to earn $1500 for a 4 -5 day job ?
@@demuelreed1992 he learned his lesson, have a written contract that covers all eventualities specially if you are about to drive a 30 yr old bus across multiple states
Why some of the people Judge Judy will give compensation? How about as she always says: You don’t like the outcome of the work or the job is not finished he exert effort on it.
Back in the day I used to get across the country using other peoples' cars when they needed to have them transported. Never had any trouble. But driving a 30-year-old vehicle in the winter over the Rockies? Yeah, sure. He's lucky he wasn't in a real bad accident. The defendant is just a jerk.
So by this logic - if you hire a painter to paint your house and you provided 2 gallons of paint BUT the painter needed 4 gallons to finish the job, then you owe the painter zero dollars. 🤔
That's not how it works. Painters bill for time and bill for materials separately. So he would get paid for his time and what he painted. If the owner refuses to pay for additional materials, you get paid for what you've done. This guy's contract is pay on job completion, there were no other stipulations regarding time/effort/breakdown etc, his fault signing a risky contract
@@jemma-joonthat’s not true, we’ve seen it on this show. Charging for the job, not finishing; but getting what they did do. Because that’s how it actually works.
@@elvickRULES the problem is not what you think you saw, the problem is in what the contracts of these cases stipulates. it's not a black and white situation, and your understanding is irrelevant. Seen so many posters complaining about how different cases are handled because they've never owned a business or saw contracts in their lives
@ black and white would be JJ’s choice here; where since the job is incomplete it has no value. Even though now he was able to pay just a few grand to transport it the rest of the way. So he got free work done because JJ allowed zero nuance. And she has on other cases with unfinished jobs. She’s wrong and being inconsistent, and no amount of contrarianism will make that untrue, so ✌️
she is wrong on this one - totally wrong. especially if the driver offered to return the next day after leaving the bus (which he claimed to do but she wouldn't listen or look at the evidence for). A person cannot be contractually obligated to do what isnt physically possible to do. The breakdown of the bus negates the contract and he doesn't have to finish the job. The problem is the JJ knows nothing about such things
So surprised the plaintiff didn’t get partially paid/pro rata. He didn’t drive the bus to Phoenix and perform minor repairs for charity. He needs to check his contract wording. There must be a clause that it’s payment on completion only.
If I hire a guy to paint my house, say I'll supply the paint and scaffold, and then don't have a scaffold, but the bottom of the house is painted by them, I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to pay the painter for the work he did.... This was a wrong call for the judge.
How long should he have stayed with a broken down bus to complete the trip? A week? A month? A year? Not even a partial payment for completely most of the trip? JJ is wrong on this one..
JJ always reveals her classism when it's a working stiff suing someone with $$$. The driver deserved to be paid at least for the drive from Milwaukee to Phoenix, and should have been compensated for all the problems he had. Likely, he was told that the bus was in driveable condition and that it would take about four days; he wasn't expecting the multiple breakdowns. Driving things from point A to point B is how the plaintiff earns his living, and JJ denied that his time was worth money.
JJ is contradicting herself here. She had plenty of cases where she yelled at one of the litigants that the other has done partial work on a contract and therefore is entitled to a partial payment. This is no different. Driver actually seems like a decent soft spoken guy, he didn't even try to argue.
Driver’s fault was he didn’t have a contract that would account for breakdowns, he learned his lesson, when you drive a 30 yr bus across the country you should be on guard when taking such job
@@olasek7972 Exactly. The driver and the defendant should've done a downpayment or deposit. It would have benefitted both of them. The problem with the verbal agreement is that it was one lump sum payment for finishing the job. So how can you determine halfway or partial payment? The number of days he drove or the miles, what's fair? That's why he lost the $1,500 payment. All or nothing.
I agree. The risk if driving a 30 year old bus breaking down is sky high (as demonstrated in this case) thus I would require a deposit, in case of the breakdown and that I could not complete the journey my time is somewhat covered.
I wonder what JJ would do if the lights suddenly went off during her appendix operation. Would she still blame the surgeon for not carrying on with operation in pitch black room.
Wrong again. Pay the man for his time! I'm glad nobody can see why she ruled the way she did. His job was to drive from point A to point B. He shouldn't be expected to stay in every other state for repairs for any amount of time. Not his fault the bus was in a bad way from the get go. Under her thought process, the bus could have blown up and injured the man and he still wouldn't be paid for his time, unless he waited two years in transylvania for the bus to be resurrected from the dead.
The driver is probably not getting paid because it wasnt in the contract if he couldn't finish the job. But i dont get ehy he wouldn't get paid atleast most of the $1,500
Because you're still contracted to finish the job, no matter how long it takes. When I was a P.I., a 24-hour investigation could turn into a month at any time. If I decided to back out because I had 'other things to do', I wouldn't have been paid one cent.
@@bengochea64Yes but, as per the "painter" reference, there have been other cases on this show where litigants have received partial payment for the work they completed, even though the did not complete the entire job. The question isn't about the letter of the law but rather the perceived irregularities in the judgements from JJ.
He's not getting paid for a job he did not complete... But the bus wasn't road-ready when he got there so... 🤷🏽♂ Mr. Foster probably would've been better off if he told the guy who hired him, _"This bus is not ready to roll. I'm not getting into it unless you have someone come and make sure it will last for the planned trip."_
I don’t agree with this one. Judge Judy awarded a truck driver when the rig he was driving broke down and said he should have been paid and awarded him the money.
The driver should've gotten paid the amount of the job he did drove. Mother nature and neglect from the owner not being available due to gambling and not proper insurance is the owners fault. But at least the plaintiff didn't get stuck with the towing bill.
Nobody will drive for that defendant after hearing this. That was a terrible judgement from JJ. He should have been paid either based on the days he was with the bus or for the distance he travelled. So he did all that for nothing and it's the defendants fault for not ensuring the vehicle was roadworthy. Plus he had the wrong kind of insurance that only covered himself. Then after all that the driver had to take him to court to get him to pay for the towing fees! Defendant is an ahole and JJ is wrong.
JJ seems to struggle with cases involving mechanical topics. If the plaintiff were a painter and painted 75% of the house, she would have reimbursed him for that amount of work regardless of the reason the rest couldn't have been finished.
So he was suppose to drive the bus back even if t takes him 2 months for example? Come on JJ. Surely due consideration should be applied to his time and how long a normal trip would have taken.
Though it might be irrelevant that I'm in law school, I still want to share my two cents. I could be mistaken, but I believe Judge Judy got this one wrong. Both parties entered into a contract based on consideration: one party agreed to drive the vehicle provided by the defendant, and in return, the defendant agreed to supply a workable vehicle. The core terms were a driver in exchange for compensation-each side had to contribute something for the contract to be valid. When the vehicle stopped working, the defendant failed to fulfill their part of the contract. It’s similar to a fashion designer hiring someone to sew clothes and providing a sewing machine. If the machine breaks mid-shift, should the worker leave without any compensation for their time and effort? The surgery example JJ used is not applicable at all! The doctor chose not to complete the surgery, but in this case he had no means to finish the job! In this case, the plaintiff's labor made the vehicle drivable to some extent, and the contract broke down due to the defendant’s failure. The plaintiff may not deserve full compensation for everything, but he certainly deserve something. Accommodation or towing fees alone doesn't suffice.
Not sure how so many of y'all don't see that since he abandoned the bus he has to pay someone else to drive the entire distance. From his state to the van and finish the job. Same distance driving. There's no magical teleport machine
Feel sorry for the plaintiff. He deserves being paid for his time to drive that bus that obviously was not in good order clear across the country. The defendant ripped him off judge Judy failed.
It's a 30 year old bus. It might have had a rebuilt engine, but it seemed to have a mess of other systems that were failing due to extreme weather or age. The plaintiff should have been paid something, especially since it was supposed to be a four day job and the problems with the bus were not his fault. He needs a better contract in the future.
I own a bus company. JJ was totally wrong on her ruling. The driver did his job. Unless the driver ran out of fuel, ran low on oil or coolant, the mechanical issues were not the driver’s fault. He should’ve been paid for his time. The bus was 30 years old and from the testimony wasn’t mechanically sound or legal to be on the road. I have purchased buses that broke down while being delivered to me. I was responsible for repair bills and the drivers were paid for what they asked to do. The own sounds like he’s a degenerate gambler and a crook.
Don't agree too much with this case, the driver had gotten the bus most of the way and he should have been paid for that, maybe not in the full payment but he should have gotten half or three quarters of the payment for the job. The bus kept on breaking down and having issues, it was said the plan was for the job being done in 4 days but had been pushed out further, the driver can have other jobs booked for AFTER this job.
I feel bad for the Plaintiff. The plaintiff got screwed all around in this case, forced to drive a 30-year-old bus that kept breaking down, but wasn't paid for the job cause he couldn't finish it, which wasn't his fault. Comparing a bus driver to a surgeon, Judge Judy is wrong in doing so, they're totally different, apples and oranges.
Fill the fuel filters sounds like he ran it low on diesel, so they had to prime the fuel filters to start it . If the bus had air system issues ( being 30 years old) it is not the drivers fault and the mechanic who worked on it probably told owner that it’s air system issues are an out of service issue and needs to be addressed before bus is back on the road. If owner declined service the driver had every right not to drive it further because it failed an air system check. BS ruling by JJ , she blew the engine on this one !
The comments are in agreement . How could JJ be so unjust on this case ... He deserves more than the origal fee agreed , all the extra time he wasted because the defendant gave him a defective bus.
I love how JJ milked the counterclaim by interviewing the defendant's witness to demonstrate breakdowns had nothing to do with bus being overdriven. Was broken down because old bus was in the extreme weather conditions.
I just don’t understand. JJ usually rips people apart who are not properly insured, why did she go so easy on the defendant? If the plaintiff would’ve been in accident this would be a totally different case. I don’t think the plaintiff even knew that he wasn’t technically insured by the owner of the vehicle. Also JJ is out of touch with how much towing actually fully costs, and how being unavailable to work other jobs for 8 days while waiting for a response is something that should be considered and paid at least partially…
What he was talking about having with AAA isn’t insurance. It’s roadside assistance. He might have had insurance with another company that didn’t include towing. With my old insurance company I had towing on my policy but it was reimbursement. They didn’t send a tow truck driver to you like AAA does. With AAA the owner of the policy or someone added on the policy must be present. It follows the driver not the vehicle. If I am driving or riding in someone else’s car AAA will tow it.
Towing a bus is massively expensive. A bus crashed just outside my old home, a young lad had been driving his girlfriend's car and whilst playing with the stereo he veered onto the wrong side of the road going round a corner. The bus driver had to mount the pavement to avoid a head on collision and so the car hit the front drivers side. I didn't realise buses had crumple zones and this small car hit it and the front of the bus caved in and the gearbox was shunted in. The bus driver had an injured leg and the young lad had injury from the seatbelt and I'm sure later whiplash as his car went flying and landed in a neighbours front garden across the street. A specialist company had to be called out to tow the bus back to the depot, a normal tow company can't do it. This huge rig turned up after a couple of hours and towed it back, it was at about 10:30pm so offices were closed and emergency phones had to be called and it took a while to sort.
Sorry, I know Judge Judy’s retired , but you dropped the ball. The driver should be reimbursed for the 70-75% of the driving fee plus wait time for those repairs. The allegations that he drove it too hard are a crock because what broke was what the mechanic never touched, plus the owner being shifty claiming he had when he didn’t have tow coverage. Damaged his credibility!!
Sorry Judge Judy, this time I disagree with you. As an ex-bus driver it’s not the driver’s fault it keeps breaking down. The driver is still owed for his time. He contracted to do a job that was only supposed to take a certain amount of time.
The only thing that even remotely makes sense, is she thinks they're trying to scam her. I have no idea why she would blame the driver for the defendant's faulty vehicle. The plaintiff was incredibly respectful and it sounds like he did everything he could reasonably do to help the situation. Hopefully, he'll get some future work out of having to put up with this
Yes, the driver should have received some payment for the job. Not only did he do part of it, but he fixed the bus himself once and took it to multiple mechanics. He was just the driver, not a mechanic. He went above and beyond by any measure. The issues were out of his control.
What does JJ have against this guy?? That’s ridiculous for him to not get paid for the work he did. He went almost all the way! He could have been paid for other jobs during that time. Seems like he had a legit miserable experience and she didn’t want to hear one word of it. JJ was wrong for this one.
I think yall are missing that the defendant had the costs of the plaintiff’s air fare to get to the bus, the lodgings (even though it was only one night), repairs on the credit card, and all of the expenses on the credit card too. That’s a lot of $$$ the defendant is shelling out too. Getting the towing is for sure needs to go back go the plaintiff.
Just like in cases where they need a sign language interpreter for a hearing impaired person, JJ should have had expert testimony at her disposal to assist her with car cases. She is incredibly ignorant in most situations involving motorized vehicles. It reminds me of the case where a nanny borrowed a car from the defendant and JJ questioned why she would ever need to check the oil, or the tire pressure before going on a long trip, because cars have both oil and air in them so there should be no need to check them.
Its pretty rare that JJ gets things so badly wrong, but most of us with common sense can agree her judgement is very wrong here. Even in prior cases with contractors and handymen, she has awarded them money for partial completion due to the hours put in. Additionally, her rant about the weather was equally bizarre. It's almost as if she was grasping for straws to justify her own bad ruling. The plaintiff deserves about 75% payment.
I see Judges point. He was paid to get push from A to B with Defendant responsibilities for all expenses. That it became hard and Plaintiff walked off can’t result in a partial payment.
IMHO, JJ was not fair in this judgement. The poor driver, spending 8 miserable days dealing with this terrible bus, spent money and time away from his family, and gets what in the end? Nothing?
The driver should have pitched his case differently. I was hired to drive for x amount of days. I couldn’t complete the job due to being provided sub standard bus. I completed agreed days and spent additional x amount of days on top of what was agreed. Additional costs for repairs + towing came to x.
I wonder what the judge would think if a worker was hired to mow someone's lawn with the property owner's mower, and the mower kept breaking down. Then the owner required the employee to take the mower in for a repair himself, then the mower broke down several more times. How is it the responsibility of the employee to spend his own time getting repairs done with no extra compensation? If the job could not be finished because the mower could not be repaired in a reasonable time frame, is it then fair to blame the employee for issues that were not his fault, and then refuse to pay him? How many weeks or months would the judge consider reasonable for an employee to work basically for free? Judge Judy has obviously never done any kind of real work, or this decision could never have made any sense to her. What a travesty! BILL
The plantiff was very prepared for this case, had good evidence, and put in more for the driving job than he needed to. Was he paid to act as a mechanic at all? I bet not. JJ was off base in this one. The bus sounds like a piece of junk. He should have recieved payment.
So he doesnt get the money he drove part way there.. even if it broke down. How was he supposed to know it would break down so many times. Waste of time. Take it as a loss I guess.
Every time the defendant or his wife or the mechanic spoke they gave JJ another reason why the plaintiff should be paid for his time. What a nightmare and double talking plaintiffs. He'll talk to him anytime unless he's in a poker tourney. Bus is covered if defendant drives it. Mechanic works on bus for 6 months....get outta here with this lying.
Seems like the most stressful trip. If he would have gotten there without problems it would be so much easier. An employee doesn’t need to guarantee the job is done if the equipment given to do the task is a lemon. He is a [short term] employee. Not a contractor. Bad decision by JJ here
Bad judgment. If i show up to work, and a tornado hits on hour 5 of 8, im not staying until the store gets rebuilt, but i shouldnt be out the 5 hours i worked.
JJ missed the boat on this one. If her surgeon, operating on her appendix, noted a tumor adjacent to the appendix and removed it, leaving the appendix because the tumor was the issue, does he get get paid? The plaintiff got hosed, full stop.
He got there 75% of the way, he should have gotten 75% of the agreed to amount. Not his fault that defendant handed him a lemon.
The issue is truck drivers get paid per job. Should have been a contract which stipulations he still gets paid. I don't agree with JJ's analogy of a surgeon either where they don't complete the job they don't get paid. They get paid regardless. I know someone who had to pay a specialist even though they couldn't complete the surgery as when they opened them up they needed to call in another specialist. They still got paid at least in part.
@@stefmms6280exactly, just wrote a similar comment somewhere else, ppl don't understand how contracts work
Completely agree. He should be paid for what he accomplished. Basically the owner got free transportation for most of the way....
What I see is that the plaintiff had already spent 8 days on a 4 day job. These delays were the responsibility of the defendant. I feel the driver should be paid twice the original fee. His problem was in the way he explained it. This is the problem with representing yourself in front of someone like Judge Judy. If she doesn’t like the way you say something, she finds a way to rule against you regardless.
I tend to agree with her the vast majority of the time, and she does an excellent job of seeing through the games that people play. But she really had her head wrong on this affair. I get she's only human.
I disagree with JJ on this one. It’s not the plaintiff’s fault that the bus kept breaking down. He should be paid for his time.
yes, i agree, he should of gotten at least thalf of his bill
I agree. Yesterday we had a case where the woman was awarded $625 out of $1000 for work that she did even if she didn't finish everything. Something in the contract or written complaint makes me think she ruled this way, but I am totally sympathetic with the driver here. He should have gotten something. The whole towing situation was shady and hurt the defendant's credibility.
I agree. He committed his time to do
The job
I agree as well. It’s a 30 yr old bus and it keeps breaking down. He knew he had to be there in order to reimburse insurance but he clearly knew he was not going to be there if he asked someone else to drive the bus. The bus keeps breaking down then the guy cannot complete the job. Should have at least gotten paid for some of his time.
Yes I have no clue why she thought his time wasn't worth anything
I do think the driver got hosed on this. He might not have deserved the full amount of the job, but he did drive it to Phoenix even after dealing with multiple breakdowns.
half would of been fair,
True and I think after the first breakdown he shouldn't drive it at all.
I think he would have been if he hadn't left Phoenix the day after the breakdown. And I get it, this sounds like the trip from hell which was already way behind schedule because of factors out of his control. However, because he (understandably) had enough by that point he didn't wait until it was clear that he couldn't finish the job. If he had checked into a decent motel and put the bill and all his food costs on expenses I guarantee that the owner would have told him to come home as soon it was clear the bus wasn't drivable and he would have been paid. However, because he jumped the gun the owner could make a claim of job abandonment. JJ is usually good at awarding part payment to builders/decorators when they can show they did some of the items on a list of jobs. In this case there was only one task - get a bus from A to B - and that wasn't done.
He got reimbursed for the towing fee that he paid for the owner. $2,000 . The defendant is a piece of work.
So are you saying it was his fault the bus was a lemon? 😂
Wow, I've never seen so many of us disagree with her judgment. The plaintiff should have been paid for his time up until that point.
And offered to drive the bus later after it was repaired.
I think I've always been able to understand JJ's decisions in some way. This one, however, makes absolutely no sense. The defendant bought a 30-year-old bus at 3% of its cost new and suckered the plaintiff into driving it, the defendant waited through repairs as it broke down across the country, and JJ wants to pay him for NONE of his time? Outrageous.
So he doesn’t get paid because he couldn’t drive it back due to it breaking down at least 4 times! He doesn’t control the weather but he also isn’t responsible for the mechanics of the bus, he is just a driver. He couldn’t predict that, he deserves to get at least partial payment.
Obviously, every time the weather gets out of the 60-80degree temperature range, every bus, diesel truck, and railroad locomotive in the world breaks down.
@@richardfabacher3705I'm not sure what your point is but that was a 29 year old bus and according to the mechanic it was hoses breaking and fuel line problems etc.. that is not something a driver can fix. Then to try to stick the driver with the towing fees because you got the wrong insurance is an ahole move! The driver should have been paid for the work he did. Companies sell these buses when they get too expensive to keep repairing and normally the buyer spends a lot of time and money on restoration before trying to drive it any distance.
@@shendisackett It's called SARCASM. Judy kept belittling the driver because she argued the delay WAS ALL BECAUSE OF WEATHER. I agree with you 100% the cheapskate a-hole got off easy and the driver got screwed doing 2-3 times the contract time and labor. But all Judy saw was that it was cold so the bus couldn't run. Act of God.
@@richardfabacher3705 you don't need to use capitals, sarcasm doesn't always come across in writing as people have told me plenty of times 😂 so now I add an emoji to make sure they get it! I don't know why she was so biased against the driver he came across as a nice guy but you're right she was belittling him. She also ignored the fact that he offered several times to go back and finish the journey once the bus was repaired.
What a terrible ruling! JJ surprised men with this one. Was this before lunch, lol 😂?
Any other time she would pay the person for a partial work done. Unfair judgement
I thought that too.
That's not how it works. Some contracts you get paid by the job, others you get paid by the hour. His contract is paid by the job, he didn't complete the job, there are not other stipulations regarding an incomplete job
I'm not so sure about that. They get partial payment when the job done can actually be used. Leaving a stranded truck somewhere in the country might be more complicated or expensive to retrieve.
@@jemma-joon he couldnt complete the job because he didnt have a working bus to complete the job .. he;s supposed to wait 1 month to earn $1500 for a 4 -5 day job ?
The Driver must have something in return his time and effort is worth it.
Only if the contract says that. His contract didn't stipulate anything about effort or an incomplete job. He signed it knowing the risks
@@demuelreed1992 he learned his lesson, have a written contract that covers all eventualities specially if you are about to drive a 30 yr old bus across multiple states
he didnt finish the job. no money. you dont reward unfinished work.
Why some of the people Judge Judy will give compensation? How about as she always says: You don’t like the outcome of the work or the job is not finished he exert effort on it.
I love how judge Judy reviewed every “issue” outlined in the bill with the mechanic to prove it has nothing to do with the rebuilt engine 😂
And she still got it wrong driver should have received something for dealing with a broken bus.
which totally supported the plaintiff's case
Back in the day I used to get across the country using other peoples' cars when they needed to have them transported. Never had any trouble. But driving a 30-year-old vehicle in the winter over the Rockies? Yeah, sure. He's lucky he wasn't in a real bad accident. The defendant is just a jerk.
Yep, if he would’ve been in accident, it wouldn’t have been covered and this would’ve been a totally different kind of case.
So by this logic - if you hire a painter to paint your house and you provided 2 gallons of paint BUT the painter needed 4 gallons to finish the job, then you owe the painter zero dollars. 🤔
That's not how it works. Painters bill for time and bill for materials separately. So he would get paid for his time and what he painted. If the owner refuses to pay for additional materials, you get paid for what you've done. This guy's contract is pay on job completion, there were no other stipulations regarding time/effort/breakdown etc, his fault signing a risky contract
@@jemma-joonthat’s not true, we’ve seen it on this show. Charging for the job, not finishing; but getting what they did do. Because that’s how it actually works.
@@elvickRULES the problem is not what you think you saw, the problem is in what the contracts of these cases stipulates. it's not a black and white situation, and your understanding is irrelevant. Seen so many posters complaining about how different cases are handled because they've never owned a business or saw contracts in their lives
@ black and white would be JJ’s choice here; where since the job is incomplete it has no value. Even though now he was able to pay just a few grand to transport it the rest of the way. So he got free work done because JJ allowed zero nuance.
And she has on other cases with unfinished jobs. She’s wrong and being inconsistent, and no amount of contrarianism will make that untrue, so ✌️
Did any of you look at the case from the beginning?
she is wrong on this one - totally wrong. especially if the driver offered to return the next day after leaving the bus (which he claimed to do but she wouldn't listen or look at the evidence for). A person cannot be contractually obligated to do what isnt physically possible to do. The breakdown of the bus negates the contract and he doesn't have to finish the job. The problem is the JJ knows nothing about such things
I bet JJ applied the law correctly, the driver didn’t have a contract that would account for possible breakdowns, he learned his lesson unfortunately
So surprised the plaintiff didn’t get partially paid/pro rata. He didn’t drive the bus to Phoenix and perform minor repairs for charity. He needs to check his contract wording. There must be a clause that it’s payment on completion only.
If I hire a guy to paint my house, say I'll supply the paint and scaffold, and then don't have a scaffold, but the bottom of the house is painted by them, I'm pretty sure I'm going to have to pay the painter for the work he did.... This was a wrong call for the judge.
That's a much better analogy than hers.
How long should he have stayed with a broken down bus to complete the trip? A week? A month? A year? Not even a partial payment for completely most of the trip? JJ is wrong on this one..
This case is way above Judy's pay grade.
JJ always reveals her classism when it's a working stiff suing someone with $$$.
The driver deserved to be paid at least for the drive from Milwaukee to Phoenix, and should have been compensated for all the problems he had. Likely, he was told that the bus was in driveable condition and that it would take about four days; he wasn't expecting the multiple breakdowns.
Driving things from point A to point B is how the plaintiff earns his living, and JJ denied that his time was worth money.
@@friendlypiranha774 it is well within her competence, basic contract law, she can’t invent a new law as she goes
JJ is contradicting herself here. She had plenty of cases where she yelled at one of the litigants that the other has done partial work on a contract and therefore is entitled to a partial payment. This is no different.
Driver actually seems like a decent soft spoken guy, he didn't even try to argue.
Driver’s fault was he didn’t have a contract that would account for breakdowns, he learned his lesson, when you drive a 30 yr bus across the country you should be on guard when taking such job
@@olasek7972 Exactly. The driver and the defendant should've done a downpayment or deposit. It would have benefitted both of them. The problem with the verbal agreement is that it was one lump sum payment for finishing the job. So how can you determine halfway or partial payment? The number of days he drove or the miles, what's fair? That's why he lost the $1,500 payment. All or nothing.
I agree. The risk if driving a 30 year old bus breaking down is sky high (as demonstrated in this case) thus I would require a deposit, in case of the breakdown and that I could not complete the journey my time is somewhat covered.
I wonder what JJ would do if the lights suddenly went off during her appendix operation. Would she still blame the surgeon for not carrying on with operation in pitch black room.
Exactly
You think she would pay them if that happened?
My guess would be no
Good example
Her analogy sucked because as soon as you check into a hospital you are being charged !
Operating rooms have back up lighting. DUH...
A 4parter on a Thursday. We are lucky today 😊
Unfair judgement of all time. Tons of reasons why this judgement was unfair. It's right there, you can see it very unfair 😢😢😢
The plaintiffs drove all this time for nothing?
Judge Judy was wrong
Defendant look at his mechanic and said to himself "you screwed me over" LOL
Wrong again. Pay the man for his time! I'm glad nobody can see why she ruled the way she did. His job was to drive from point A to point B. He shouldn't be expected to stay in every other state for repairs for any amount of time. Not his fault the bus was in a bad way from the get go. Under her thought process, the bus could have blown up and injured the man and he still wouldn't be paid for his time, unless he waited two years in transylvania for the bus to be resurrected from the dead.
He should get some type of compensation for his time.
The driver is probably not getting paid because it wasnt in the contract if he couldn't finish the job. But i dont get ehy he wouldn't get paid atleast most of the $1,500
Your not the only one, I too dont get why he didn't get at least some of the money
Because you're still contracted to finish the job, no matter how long it takes.
When I was a P.I., a 24-hour investigation could turn into a month at any time. If I decided to back out because I had 'other things to do', I wouldn't have been paid one cent.
@@bengochea64Yes but, as per the "painter" reference, there have been other cases on this show where litigants have received partial payment for the work they completed, even though the did not complete the entire job. The question isn't about the letter of the law but rather the perceived irregularities in the judgements from JJ.
@@bengochea64well I guess that can be the case, but other Private Investigators usually have people put down a non-refundable deposit…
Yeah, all eventualities should have been accounted for in the contract, he learned his lesson
Unfair for the driver.
He's not getting paid for a job he did not complete... But the bus wasn't road-ready when he got there so... 🤷🏽♂
Mr. Foster probably would've been better off if he told the guy who hired him, _"This bus is not ready to roll. I'm not getting into it unless you have someone come and make sure it will last for the planned trip."_
I agree.
I pray that the defendant lose all his money gambling
He's such a slimy person along with his wife and mechanic.
Thats a lot of time that dude will never get back smfh
If JJ dos not like you, you don’t get crap!
She was so obviously biased towards the defendant. She must have really liked his tie.
she applies the existing law
Im not a mechanic, but I don’t think the defendant’s mechanic was one either…
I don’t agree with this one.
Judge Judy awarded a truck driver when the rig he was driving broke down and said he should have been paid and awarded him the money.
Sounds like the bus was a piece of crap. Guy should have gotten paid.
The driver should've gotten paid the amount of the job he did drove. Mother nature and neglect from the owner not being available due to gambling and not proper insurance is the owners fault. But at least the plaintiff didn't get stuck with the towing bill.
Most the time she pays people for the work they did. Even if the whole job wasn't finished. I don't agree with her on this.
The driver should have get paid for part of the job he did. JJ was wrong on this
Nobody will drive for that defendant after hearing this. That was a terrible judgement from JJ. He should have been paid either based on the days he was with the bus or for the distance he travelled. So he did all that for nothing and it's the defendants fault for not ensuring the vehicle was roadworthy. Plus he had the wrong kind of insurance that only covered himself. Then after all that the driver had to take him to court to get him to pay for the towing fees! Defendant is an ahole and JJ is wrong.
JJ seems to struggle with cases involving mechanical topics. If the plaintiff were a painter and painted 75% of the house, she would have reimbursed him for that amount of work regardless of the reason the rest couldn't have been finished.
She struggles with cases involving construction also. She has no clue
Defendant seems like a sleaze ball. Plaintiff should’ve gotten his pay up front. JJ got this one wrong, methinks.
JJ wrong on this. The bus was a 30 year old dump. Not the drivers fault
I hate to admit it but JJ is wrong on this one it’s not the plaintiffs fault the bus was a piece of 💩 and broke down multiple times.
What a strange, blatantly unfair ruling; I’m flabbergasted 🧐
I drove a truck for over 50 years, if you break down, you were compensated after so much time. JJ blew the hell out of this one.
JJ was straight up wrong on this one!!🤦🏾♀️💯🤬
wrong she was spot on.....
@@trekgirl65 how so?
JJ is wrong on this one. It's not his fault the bus broke down. He should be paid. (If he was a painter, he'd get pd)
I bet JJ applied the law, I am speculating the driver should have had a written contract where buses breakdowns would have been accounted for
Judge got it wrong 😢 ...
Sometimes I think JJ is just too wealthy to judge fairly. This was an absolute miss. I hope the driver creates a contract that protects him next time.
Bad ruling. He got it all the way to AZ and it kept breaking down. He should have received compensation for the work he did.
So he was suppose to drive the bus back even if t takes him 2 months for example? Come on JJ. Surely due consideration should be applied to his time and how long a normal trip would have taken.
Though it might be irrelevant that I'm in law school, I still want to share my two cents. I could be mistaken, but I believe Judge Judy got this one wrong. Both parties entered into a contract based on consideration: one party agreed to drive the vehicle provided by the defendant, and in return, the defendant agreed to supply a workable vehicle. The core terms were a driver in exchange for compensation-each side had to contribute something for the contract to be valid.
When the vehicle stopped working, the defendant failed to fulfill their part of the contract. It’s similar to a fashion designer hiring someone to sew clothes and providing a sewing machine. If the machine breaks mid-shift, should the worker leave without any compensation for their time and effort?
The surgery example JJ used is not applicable at all! The doctor chose not to complete the surgery, but in this case he had no means to finish the job!
In this case, the plaintiff's labor made the vehicle drivable to some extent, and the contract broke down due to the defendant’s failure. The plaintiff may not deserve full compensation for everything, but he certainly deserve something. Accommodation or towing fees alone doesn't suffice.
I agree I wish the plaintiff got some money. However maybe in the contract it had certain wording we don’t know about.
Not sure how so many of y'all don't see that since he abandoned the bus he has to pay someone else to drive the entire distance. From his state to the van and finish the job. Same distance driving. There's no magical teleport machine
Judge Judy was wrong on this one. Mechanical problems were the problem. It was un safe to drive.
Feel sorry for the plaintiff. He deserves being paid for his time to drive that bus that obviously was not in good order clear across the country. The defendant ripped him off judge Judy failed.
It's a 30 year old bus. It might have had a rebuilt engine, but it seemed to have a mess of other systems that were failing due to extreme weather or age.
The plaintiff should have been paid something, especially since it was supposed to be a four day job and the problems with the bus were not his fault. He needs a better contract in the future.
I own a bus company. JJ was totally wrong on her ruling. The driver did his job. Unless the driver ran out of fuel, ran low on oil or coolant, the mechanical issues were not the driver’s fault. He should’ve been paid for his time. The bus was 30 years old and from the testimony wasn’t mechanically sound or legal to be on the road. I have purchased buses that broke down while being delivered to me. I was responsible for repair bills and the drivers were paid for what they asked to do. The own sounds like he’s a degenerate gambler and a crook.
Completely disagree with this one. The reason the driver didn’t complete the job was not his fault. He should have been paid for his time.
Don't agree too much with this case, the driver had gotten the bus most of the way and he should have been paid for that, maybe not in the full payment but he should have gotten half or three quarters of the payment for the job. The bus kept on breaking down and having issues, it was said the plan was for the job being done in 4 days but had been pushed out further, the driver can have other jobs booked for AFTER this job.
I feel bad for the Plaintiff.
The plaintiff got screwed all around in this case, forced to drive a 30-year-old bus that kept breaking down, but wasn't paid for the job cause he couldn't finish it, which wasn't his fault.
Comparing a bus driver to a surgeon, Judge Judy is wrong in doing so, they're totally different, apples and oranges.
Fill the fuel filters sounds like he ran it low on diesel, so they had to prime the fuel filters to start it . If the bus had air system issues ( being 30 years old) it is not the drivers fault and the mechanic who worked on it probably told owner that it’s air system issues are an out of service issue and needs to be addressed before bus is back on the road. If owner declined service the driver had every right not to drive it further because it failed an air system check. BS ruling by JJ , she blew the engine on this one !
The comments are in agreement . How could JJ be so unjust on this case ... He deserves more than the origal fee agreed , all the extra time he wasted because the defendant gave him a defective bus.
JJ got it wrong this time. She seemed like she was in a huge hurry and just wanted to move on to the next case.
She gotten it wrong multiple times actually
I never say this. Judge Judy was wrong. He should have gotten all his time paid
I love how JJ milked the counterclaim by interviewing the defendant's witness to demonstrate breakdowns had nothing to do with bus being overdriven. Was broken down because old bus was in the extreme weather conditions.
Love you Judge Judy 🙏
We know that but she was totally wrong in this episode!
Judge Judy lost her mind and marbles in this specific case.What an injustice!
That look of disbelief the defendants always give at the end when they lose their countersuit. Gets me every time.
I just don’t understand. JJ usually rips people apart who are not properly insured, why did she go so easy on the defendant? If the plaintiff would’ve been in accident this would be a totally different case. I don’t think the plaintiff even knew that he wasn’t technically insured by the owner of the vehicle.
Also JJ is out of touch with how much towing actually fully costs, and how being unavailable to work other jobs for 8 days while waiting for a response is something that should be considered and paid at least partially…
What he was talking about having with AAA isn’t insurance. It’s roadside assistance. He might have had insurance with another company that didn’t include towing. With my old insurance company I had towing on my policy but it was reimbursement. They didn’t send a tow truck driver to you like AAA does. With AAA the owner of the policy or someone added on the policy must be present. It follows the driver not the vehicle. If I am driving or riding in someone else’s car AAA will tow it.
JUNK RULING. He cannot drive a broken bus. That's defendant's fault. HE MUST BE FULLY PAID. JJ IS NUTS.
Towing a bus is massively expensive. A bus crashed just outside my old home, a young lad had been driving his girlfriend's car and whilst playing with the stereo he veered onto the wrong side of the road going round a corner. The bus driver had to mount the pavement to avoid a head on collision and so the car hit the front drivers side. I didn't realise buses had crumple zones and this small car hit it and the front of the bus caved in and the gearbox was shunted in. The bus driver had an injured leg and the young lad had injury from the seatbelt and I'm sure later whiplash as his car went flying and landed in a neighbours front garden across the street. A specialist company had to be called out to tow the bus back to the depot, a normal tow company can't do it. This huge rig turned up after a couple of hours and towed it back, it was at about 10:30pm so offices were closed and emergency phones had to be called and it took a while to sort.
I've watched every video on this channel, and this is the first time I've heard JJ say that she can control the weather.
JJ's ruling was very unfair! She was harsh and it was ridiculous!
This may be the first time that I’ve ever DISAGREED with the judge’s ruling.
Sorry, I know Judge Judy’s retired , but you dropped the ball. The driver should be reimbursed for the 70-75% of the driving fee plus wait time for those repairs. The allegations that he drove it too hard are a crock because what broke was what the mechanic never touched, plus the owner being shifty claiming he had when he didn’t have tow coverage. Damaged his credibility!!
this is a lesson in writing a better contract for yourself. Always including all scenarios including partial payment if it becomes inoperable.
What is wrong with Judge judy? Not paying that guy was totally not right. She done got senile
She's got 50 years experience / knowledge in the legal profession. Please don't be disrespectful!!
@@elizabethgalligan1805 And she is clearly wrong here. It's not reasonable to expect him to wait forever for the bus to get fixed.
Maybe she will say he saw that the bus was broken down before he took the job
@@saturn-u3qHe took the job before he saw the bus since he flew to Wisconsin
Sorry Judge Judy, this time I disagree with you. As an ex-bus driver it’s not the driver’s fault it keeps breaking down. The driver is still owed for his time. He contracted to do a job that was only supposed to take a certain amount of time.
He doesn’t get paid because he was eating for free, gas for free, lodging for free! Had he finished he would’ve also gotten the $1500
The only thing that even remotely makes sense, is she thinks they're trying to scam her. I have no idea why she would blame the driver for the defendant's faulty vehicle. The plaintiff was incredibly respectful and it sounds like he did everything he could reasonably do to help the situation. Hopefully, he'll get some future work out of having to put up with this
Yes, the driver should have received some payment for the job. Not only did he do part of it, but he fixed the bus himself once and took it to multiple mechanics. He was just the driver, not a mechanic. He went above and beyond by any measure. The issues were out of his control.
An entire conversation about a cafizmo
What does JJ have against this guy?? That’s ridiculous for him to not get paid for the work he did. He went almost all the way! He could have been paid for other jobs during that time. Seems like he had a legit miserable experience and she didn’t want to hear one word of it.
JJ was wrong for this one.
JJ was wrong here. The driver’s time has value. He didn’t complete the job because the defendant failed to provide a working vehicle.
I think yall are missing that the defendant had the costs of the plaintiff’s air fare to get to the bus, the lodgings (even though it was only one night), repairs on the credit card, and all of the expenses on the credit card too. That’s a lot of $$$ the defendant is shelling out too.
Getting the towing is for sure needs to go back go the plaintiff.
He should be paid for the time spent!
If they agreed on 1500 and it would take 4 days, that’s 375 a day! He spent more than that!
Guess he should’ve paid the tow truck driver to finish the delivery
Guess? FR, he really should've paid! JJ is totally wrong on this one!
Just like in cases where they need a sign language interpreter for a hearing impaired person, JJ should have had expert testimony at her disposal to assist her with car cases. She is incredibly ignorant in most situations involving motorized vehicles. It reminds me of the case where a nanny borrowed a car from the defendant and JJ questioned why she would ever need to check the oil, or the tire pressure before going on a long trip, because cars have both oil and air in them so there should be no need to check them.
Its pretty rare that JJ gets things so badly wrong, but most of us with common sense can agree her judgement is very wrong here. Even in prior cases with contractors and handymen, she has awarded them money for partial completion due to the hours put in. Additionally, her rant about the weather was equally bizarre. It's almost as if she was grasping for straws to justify her own bad ruling. The plaintiff deserves about 75% payment.
I see Judges point. He was paid to get push from A to B with Defendant responsibilities for all expenses. That it became hard and Plaintiff walked off can’t result in a partial payment.
IMHO, JJ was not fair in this judgement. The poor driver, spending 8 miserable days dealing with this terrible bus, spent money and time away from his family, and gets what in the end? Nothing?
The driver should have pitched his case differently.
I was hired to drive for x amount of days. I couldn’t complete the job due to being provided sub standard bus.
I completed agreed days and spent additional x amount of days on top of what was agreed.
Additional costs for repairs + towing came to x.
He should be paid for his time and the repairs.
I wonder what the judge would think if a worker was hired to mow someone's lawn with the property owner's mower, and the mower kept breaking down. Then the owner required the employee to take the mower in for a repair himself, then the mower broke down several more times. How is it the responsibility of the employee to spend his own time getting repairs done with no extra compensation? If the job could not be finished because the mower could not be repaired in a reasonable time frame, is it then fair to blame the employee for issues that were not his fault, and then refuse to pay him? How many weeks or months would the judge consider reasonable for an employee to work basically for free? Judge Judy has obviously never done any kind of real work, or this decision could never have made any sense to her. What a travesty! BILL
JJ got this one wrong completely
The plantiff was very prepared for this case, had good evidence, and put in more for the driving job than he needed to. Was he paid to act as a mechanic at all? I bet not. JJ was off base in this one. The bus sounds like a piece of junk. He should have recieved payment.
So he doesnt get the money he drove part way there.. even if it broke down. How was he supposed to know it would break down so many times. Waste of time. Take it as a loss I guess.
Gosh dnt put a driver at-risk with an old ass bus!
Every time the defendant or his wife or the mechanic spoke they gave JJ another reason why the plaintiff should be paid for his time. What a nightmare and double talking plaintiffs. He'll talk to him anytime unless he's in a poker tourney. Bus is covered if defendant drives it. Mechanic works on bus for 6 months....get outta here with this lying.
The defendant needs to find another mechanic he should have made plans in case the bus broke down
Seems like the most stressful trip. If he would have gotten there without problems it would be so much easier. An employee doesn’t need to guarantee the job is done if the equipment given to do the task is a lemon. He is a [short term] employee. Not a contractor. Bad decision by JJ here
Bad judgment. If i show up to work, and a tornado hits on hour 5 of 8, im not staying until the store gets rebuilt, but i shouldnt be out the 5 hours i worked.
JJ missed the boat on this one. If her surgeon, operating on her appendix, noted a tumor adjacent to the appendix and removed it, leaving the appendix because the tumor was the issue, does he get get paid? The plaintiff got hosed, full stop.