The video shows an extract of a judge Judy case. The sound is hard to hear. I have heard it several times and the scenario is as follows:
https://youtu.be/vhGSavj5UGU
The claimant was walking her dog on a lead in what she described as the front yard but I believe this to be a public area or an area used by people living in a condominium. She was walking next to some garages. Her dog, inquisitively, sniffed in the area of some bushes. In those bushes was a tabby cat which the claimant says belongs to the defendant.
The cat attacked the dog, scratching the dog’s eye which required $4000 of veterinary treatment at the end of which the dog lost her eye. The claimant/plaintiff was looking for a court judgement that she be reimbursed for four thousand dollars. She got her award – judge Judy awarded $4000 to the claimant to be paid by the defendant.
The defendant said that the cat was not his. Judge Judy found that the cat was his and that he should have had his cat on a lead or kept his cat indoors and because his cat had damaged this woman’s dog he had to pay her compensation due to his irresponsibility.
I find judge Judy’s judgement incorrect the following reasons:
Firstly, she makes an all-encompassing statement that this man’s cat should have been on a lead or very closely supervised. However, she made no reference to any state or local laws which requires that a cat be on a lead. The fact that she made no reference to any such law indicates to me that it does not exist in that area (or, as Sandy in a comment states, that it is accepted that outdoor cats are supervised). It has to be said, in the USA, today, there are many laws which are gradually encroaching upon the historically free-roaming nature of the domestic cat.
It must be an omission by the judge that she made no attempt to modify her judgement on the basis that there is no law (ordinance) regarding cats being on leashes or kept indoors, or she appears to make no reference to any leash-law should it exist, in her judgment. That’s the first problem as I see it. Incidentally, the judge seems to have taken the view that cats are like dogs and can put on a lead without any problems. Cats do not like leads and they won’t follow their “owner” like a dog.
The second problem is that the dog had approached the cat (as I understand it), albeit that both the dog owner and the dog were unaware of the cat’s presence as the cat was in bushes. However, the cat would have been intimidated and defensively aggressive. The cat’s behaviour was defensive and reactive.
Judge Judy likens the action of this cat to attacking prey, which is extraordinary. She discusses the behaviour of cats attacking birds with the defendant and then likens that to what the cat did to the dog. This is completely incorrect because cats do not willy-nilly attack dogs as prey. Therefore judge Judy was wrong again.
I would judge this incident as “an act of nature”. In effect it was an accident (from a human standpoint), the coming together of two species of animal, inadvertently, without any malice or bad behaviour on the part of either the claimant or the defendant.
Therefore, there should have been no award of compensation. It was just bad luck. If on the other hand judge Judy wished to award some compensation to the woman she should have taken into account the fact that the dog, albeit perhaps inadvertently, was the aggressor and therefore there was an element of contributory negligence or misbehaviour from the dog’s owner. This should reduce the award to about half of what it is.
There is one last issue: if this occurred in a private area there may be rules on cats entering private areas and losing their ‘rights’.
Those are my thoughts on this at this stage. Do you have any? It is a case which goes to the heart of the indoor/outdoor cat debate and whether free-roaming cats are acceptable nowadays.
Judge Judy is an American television show. She is a real judge but her judgements on the show are not binding in the usual way but via a contract between the parties.
Animals need to be controlled by their owner. This is a common law in the states. If it was his cat, he is responsible. Natural behavior is thrown out the window in these cases. The cat should of been ‘controlled’ and so it is his owner’s fault in the eyes of the law. She certainly doesn’t explain the laws that were behind her judgement.
I know that this may seem inappropriate at first look because it feels wrong. However, what if the situation was reverse. You had your cat out on a 20 foot leash attached to the front porch. An uncontrolled dog comes up and she goes to investigate. The dog attacks her. Wouldn’t we be calling for the blood of the dog’s owner? I certainly would.
Sorry, I have to agree with the outcome, but not the way it was presented. Judge Judy is very loose on her presentation. She does sometimes explain the law, but most times she see doesn’t. Let me know your thoughts.
OK. Came to decompress. Back to finals week 1 of 2
I agree with Michael on this matter: Judge Judy is in the wrong.
But, there is one point that I disagree with. I have been around dogs for over 45 years. They have a great sense of smell that allows them to smell things from afar. That said, I guarantee that the dog knew the cat was in the bushes. That is why the dog stuck his nose in the bush; to check out the cat. Maybe the dog liked cats. Maybe the dog wanted to eat the cat. We will never know. Sorry he lost his eye over this.
Even though JJ is an actual judge, just like many others on TV, I have to keep reminding myself that her courtroom is the setting of a television program and that she is the main character. Survival of any program depends on viewers, and viewers want entertainment. She, certainly, provides that. I’m not sure that her rulings are even binding.
A judge shouldn’t become biased because she is irritated. Also if cat restrictions were in place in this county I don’t think it necessarily changes the outcome on compensation (although it might) because there has to be fault and if for example a cat was attacked by a dog outside (because the cat had escaped) and the cat fought back and hurt the dog would it be entirely fair to penalise the cat’s owner thousands of dollars?
I agree that she may not care for cats, and that clouded her. But, I’ve seen enough of her over the years to know that lying in her courtroom really sends her over the moon. If the gentleman had not denied that the cat was his, maybe the outcome would have been a bit better. Perhaps, he would have been allowed to speak freely. But, if cat restrictions were in place in his county, he still would have had to pay the woman’s vet bills.
Thanks Sandy. You are probably right. Perhaps we haven’t seen the whole trial. She may have mentioned it. I would have thought she would have referred to the law in her judgment. That is what judges do.
Do we know where the incident took place? It was not clear to me.