Did Man Clip the Docked Pontoon Boat? | Part 3
TLDRIn a dispute over a damaged pontoon boat, the claimant alleges that the defendant's throttle got stuck, causing his boat to hit and damage the claimant's vessel. The claimant insists that the incident occurred on May 13th, as per the police report, and that the defendant had apologized. The defendant denies calling the claimant on that date but admits to a conversation about the boat's vulnerable position. Judge Judy questions the claimant's recollection and the legitimacy of the police report, while also examining the boat's parking situation and the potential for damage.
Takeaways
- 😀 The conversation between the parties involved a discussion about filing an insurance claim for the boat damage.
- 😐 The person accused of causing the damage suggested filing a claim to waive the deductible, but the boat owner was unsure of the deductible amount.
- 😕 The accused expressed inability to afford the deductible and walked away from the situation.
- 😠 Judge Judy pointed out discrepancies in the testimony compared to the sworn statement, highlighting the importance of accurate recollection.
- 😯 The accused did not call the boat owner directly on May 13th, but rather called someone named Joe, as per the police report.
- 😶 There was a misunderstanding about who was accused of hitting the boat and who initiated the contact for discussion.
- 😮 The boat owner had a previous conversation warning about the vulnerable position of the boat, suggesting some foreknowledge of potential issues.
- 😵 The boat was parked along the seawall, not in a designated slip, which may have contributed to the incident.
- 😮💨 Judge Judy questioned the convenience and safety of parking the boat in such a manner, implying it could have been a factor in the collision.
- 😶🌫️ The marina employee was unsure about the need for a permit for seawall parking, indicating a possible lack of regulations or awareness.
- 😐 The damage to the boat was minimal, raising questions about the validity of the claim and whether the incident occurred as described.
Q & A
What was the initial suggestion made by the man regarding the damaged boat?
-The man suggested that the owner should file a comprehensive claim with their insurance company, who would then waive the deductible.
What was the owner's response to the suggestion about filing an insurance claim?
-The owner disagreed, stating that insurance deductibles for boats are different from those for cars and that they were unsure of the exact amount of their deductible.
What was the man's reaction after learning about the potential deductible amount?
-The man expressed that he couldn't afford the deductible and then walked away.
According to the testimony, what did Miles admit to on May 13, 2018?
-Miles admitted to hitting the boat, apologizing for the incident, and explaining that his throttle got stuck, causing the collision.
Why did the owner believe that Miles did not call them on May 13th?
-The owner realized that the testimony stated Miles called, but it was actually Joe who received the call, not the owner.
What was the context of the conversation between the owner and Joe?
-The conversation took place across the canal, where Joe accused the owner of hitting the boat and asked for the owner's phone number to discuss the incident.
How did the owner eventually contact Joe?
-The owner called Joe using the number found on the side of the boat after their initial conversation.
What was the nature of the conversation between Mr. Miller and the boat owner?
-Mr. Miller discussed the damage to the boat and mentioned that he had previously warned the owner about the vulnerable position of the boat.
Why did Judge Judy question the boat owner about the location of the boat?
-Judge Judy questioned the location because the boat was parked along the seawall rather than in a designated slip, which could have contributed to the incident.
What was the boat owner's explanation for parking along the seawall?
-The owner stated that it was a more convenient place for renters to leave from, although it was not necessarily the best place for keeping the boat.
What observation did Judge Judy make about the proximity of the boats to the seawall?
-Judge Judy noted that there was only about two feet of difference between the boats sticking out of the slip and the edge of the seawall.
How did Judge Judy summarize the situation regarding the boat damage and its location?
-Judge Judy pointed out that the damage to the boat was less than two feet, suggesting that the boat's location might have been a factor in the incident.
Outlines
🚤 Boat Damage Dispute
The script opens with a conversation about a boat damage incident. A man suggests filing an insurance claim to waive the deductible, but the boat owner is unsure of the deductible amount and the man cannot afford it. Judge Judy questions the plaintiff's sworn statement about a phone call from the person who hit the boat, revealing inconsistencies with the actual events. The plaintiff admits the person, Miles, called Joe, not him, and the conversation was about the boat's vulnerable position and the damage. The judge also inquires about the boat's parking along the seawall without a permit, suggesting it might have contributed to the incident due to its inconvenient location for other boats to maneuver.
Mindmap
Keywords
💡Pontoon Boat
💡Comprehensive Claim
💡Deductible
💡Throttle
💡Police Report
💡Vulnerable Position
💡Marina
💡Slip
💡Accusation
💡Apology
💡Insurance Company
Highlights
The defendant suggested filing an insurance claim to waive the deductible.
The plaintiff clarified that boats do not have the same insurance policies as cars regarding deductibles.
The plaintiff admitted not knowing the exact amount of the deductible for boats.
The defendant expressed inability to afford the deductible and left the conversation.
Judge Judy pointed out discrepancies in the plaintiff's sworn statement regarding the phone call.
The plaintiff corrected that Miles called Joe, not the plaintiff, about the incident.
The plaintiff swore to the date of the incident based on the police report.
The defendant was accused of hitting the boat by Joe, not the plaintiff.
A conversation across the canal took place between the defendant and Joe about the boat incident.
The defendant provided his number for further discussion about the boat damage.
The plaintiff called the defendant using the number on the boat.
The plaintiff had previously warned the defendant about the vulnerable position of the boat.
Judge Judy questioned the convenience and safety of parking the boat along the seawall.
The defendant explained the boat was parked for the convenience of renters.
Judge Judy highlighted the potential difficulty for Mr. Miller's boat due to the close proximity.
The damage to the boat was minimal, suggesting the impact might not have been significant.
Judge Judy's inquiry into the actual position and impact on the boat's parking spot.