Did Man Clip the Docked Pontoon Boat? | Part 2
TLDRIn a dispute over a damaged docked pontoon boat, Judge Judy seeks to uncover the truth. A witness, Tamara Canady, recounts the incident that occurred on May 16th at the marina where she works. She claims to have heard an odd noise and observed a boat perpendicular to the docked Princecraft. The judge requests phone records to verify the call made to the boat's owner, but they are not provided, raising questions about the credibility of the witness's account and the sequence of events following the alleged accident.
Takeaways
- 👮♀️ Judge Judy starts the session by asking about an incident between May and July involving the defendant and the claimant.
- 📞 The claimant called the police due to frustration over an unresolved issue.
- 👋 Tamara Canady, an employee at the marina, is the witness to the incident.
- ⏱️ The incident occurred on the 16th, around 1:00 PM.
- 🛥️ Tamara was working at the marina, involved in renting out boats and giving instructions.
- 👂 Tamara heard an odd noise and saw a boat perpendicular to the docked Princecraft.
- 📞 Judge Judy asks for phone records to verify the call made by Tamara to her boss about the incident.
- 📵 Tamara does not have the marina phone records or her personal phone records to provide as evidence.
- 🤔 The defendant's boss was informed about the incident via a phone call, but the exact date of the call is unclear.
- 🚤 The boss inspected the boat the following day and saw the damage.
- 📞 The defendant was contacted after the damage was discovered, but the details of the contact are not provided in the transcript.
Q & A
What was the main issue the plaintiff was facing with the defendant?
-The plaintiff was frustrated that nothing had happened regarding their issue with the defendant and felt it wasn't going to be resolved, leading them to call the police department.
Who witnessed the incident involving the docked pontoon boat?
-Tamara Canady, an employee at the marina, witnessed the incident.
What was Tamara Canady's role at the marina?
-Tamara Canady worked at the marina, helping with renting out boats, giving captain's courses, and providing instructions to renters.
On what date did the incident involving the boat occur?
-The incident occurred on the 16th, around 1:00 in the afternoon.
What was unusual that Tamara noticed which led her to observe the incident?
-Tamara heard an odd noise, which made her curious and prompted her to look towards where the boat was docked.
What was the position of the boat relative to the dock when Tamara observed the incident?
-The boat was positioned perpendicular to the dock when Tamara observed the incident.
How long had Tamara Canady been working at the marina before the incident?
-Tamara Canady had started working at the marina in May, so she had been there for approximately two months before the incident occurred.
What was the issue with the phone records that Judge Judy asked for?
-Judge Judy asked for phone records to verify the call made by the witness on the day of the incident, but the witness did not have the records available as they had erased their calls.
Who did the witness call after observing the incident?
-The witness called one of the bosses, Joe, who is a partner and closer by, to report the incident.
How did the defendant find out about the incident?
-The defendant found out about the incident through a call from his partner, who had been informed by the witness.
When did the boss who was called by the witness actually see the boat and the damage?
-The boss saw the boat and the damage the following day after the incident.
Outlines
👮♀️ Legal Inquiry and Witness Testimony
The script begins with Judge Judy initiating a discussion about an incident that occurred between May and July involving the defendant and the plaintiff, possibly related to business issues. The plaintiff expresses frustration about unresolved matters and admits to calling the police. Judge Judy seeks a witness to the incident, and Tamara Canady identifies herself as such. Tamara, who works at the marina, provides details about the incident occurring on the 16th at approximately 1:00 PM while she was conducting her duties. She describes the position of the boats and the odd noise that alerted her to the accident. Judge Judy establishes Tamara's employment status at the marina and her actions following the incident, including her attempt to reach out to the business owners, Mr. McHugh and Joe, for assistance. However, Tamara is unable to provide phone records as evidence of her calls due to the absence of the marina phone and the erasure of her personal call records.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Judge Judy
💡defendant
💡pontoon boat
💡accident
💡witness
💡marina
💡rental craft
💡damage
💡phone records
💡partner
💡evidence
Highlights
The case involves an incident with a docked pontoon boat and potential damage.
The plaintiff expresses frustration over unresolved issues leading to police involvement.
Tamara Canady, an employee at the marina, claims to have witnessed the incident.
The incident allegedly occurred at approximately 1:00 PM.
Ms. Canady's role at the marina includes renting out boats and providing captain's courses.
She was at a distance from the boat when she heard an odd noise.
Ms. Canady observed a boat perpendicular to the docked pontoon boat.
Judge Judy inquires about the specific boat involved in the incident.
Ms. Canady clarifies that the boat in question is a rental craft owned by others.
Judge Judy seeks evidence of a phone call made by Ms. Canady regarding the incident.
Ms. Canady admits she does not have phone records to prove the call was made.
The defendant's partner, Joe, is mentioned as the recipient of the call.
Judge Judy emphasizes the importance of phone records as evidence.
The defendant erased their call records, making it difficult to verify the call's occurrence.
The defendant's partner confirms receiving a call about the incident.
Judge Judy questions the timeline of events and the communication between parties.
The defendant visited the boat the following day to assess the damage.
Judge Judy seeks clarity on how the defendant was contacted after the incident.