• listen to the first part of The Case of the Burnt-Up Bug, in which the case is introduced (stop before the judge begins to ask questions): Discuss your understanding of the case so far. Who are the participants? What are the issues, according to each?
• then take notes as you listen to the judge's questions (stop when he retires to make his decision), discuss the case, and record YOUR decision
• finally, listen to the judge's decision.

PLAINTIFF: (click) Denise Anker Joshua Anker Michael Anker Danny Nichols Joseph Wapner suing for: DEFENDANT: (click) Denise Anker Joshua Anker Michael Anker Danny Nichols Joseph Wapner issues VW fire screwdriver money hazard accessible battery burns NOTES: my decision: I find for the (click) plaintiff (the Ankers should pay Danny $1,200.) defendant (the Ankers shouldn't have to pay Danny)

allege claim contend feel insist say state

• See if you can fill in the missing words in each blank (noun clause, gerund, or infinitive). The verbs are given to you; you may have to add a subject or other parts of the verb phrase. (You can check the answers here.)
• Listen to each section to check your predictions.
• Discuss the questions about the judge's questions

What you are witnessing is real. The participants are not actors. They are actual litigants with a case pending in a California municipal court. Both parties have agreed their court cases and their dispute settled here in our forum -- The People's Court.

(SECOND CASE):

This is the plaintiff, Danny Nichols. He alleges hide-and-seek under his VW bug and somehow during the time he was hiding under the car, it on fire. He's suing for $1,200, the value of his totalled car.

This is the defendant, Michael Anker, his wife Denise, and 11-year-old son Joshua. He says while Joshua was under the car a screwdriver out of somewhere and . The plaintiff should never have left such a hazard sitting in his driveway, so he doesn't feel him a red cent. He is accused of his child.

We'll return for "The Case of the Burnt-Up Bug" after these messages

Now the plaintiff claims on the car, but insists a hazardous situation. He says under it or touched the screwdriver and he expects for the loss of the car.

The defendant contends the car in an accessible spot, with the battery still connected and the wires just hanging out. He states lucky of the fire with just some minor burns.

Well, let's watch now, as the litigants tell judge Wapner about this near-disaster:

Judge Wapner: I know , sir. I have read your complaint. You're claiming on fire?

Judge: How do you know Joshua who was involved?

Danny: Well, I talked to my roommate and he said to him under there and done it. And then when I got back ...

Danny: Yeah. I parked it on the side of my house, you know, in my place. You know, I've parked it there ever since I lived there ..

Judge: OK. Why did you pull the screwdriver out? Did you know by it out? Did you know a fuel line?

Joshua: No.

Judge: Just in there, hiding, you had nothing else , so you saw the screwdriver and you yanked it. Is that about ?

Judge: I didn't ask you for it, sir. You have to ..

Denise: But I do have a witness that was there when the fireman said as a hazard, it hooked up to the battery when he left, went out of town for a while.

Danny: I had a garage pull the motor and I told them, "Well it's going to be about a week and a half and I'm going to leave out of town for a couple months, so could you have it done by then?" And he said no problem.

... and there's a picture in there showing up against it. You can see ..

Friend: Yes, I was. I was there when Denise was reprimanding Joshua, and the fireman standing next to her told .., interrupted her and explained to her a battery connected to live wires. They were just hanging down, and that's the fire.

Danny: ... But I don't think with my car, underneath it, in the first place.

Judge: "Ordinary negligence" is a failure ordinary care of a person under same or similar circumstances. ...

For example, instead of hide-and-seek and under the car, if he'd broken into your garage (I say broken in, not just if the door's open, but broken in) and something had happened, that's willful misconduct, because you shouldn't break into someone else's place.

Your car's out there. It's been there for two months. It's an accident, really, waiting . And the question is, is ( under the car, hide-and-seek, and a screwdriver and it out) is that willful misconduct? Well, at the most, I'd say it's kind of a .. well, even a prank. It's just .. He's under there. He's waiting either or not, and he's got nothing , and so he sees a screwdriver and just pulls it. He doesn't know when he pulls the screwdriver. (Danny: Yeah.) I think with that. So we're lucky out. And if he hadn't, I think a lawsuit the other way for your failure a .. keep a proper car in .. not an accident waiting to happen. In any rate, the parents are not liable. I don't even think negligence on the part of Joshua, but certainly there's no willful misconduct. The judgment is for the defendant.

And that will bring this case to a close for now. I'm Doug Llewellyn thanking you once again for us and reminding you, if you're involved in a dispute with another party (such as this) and you can't work it out, don't take the law into your own hands. You take him to court.

Both parties have agreed to dismiss their court cases and have their dispute settled here in our forum -- The People's Court.
This is the plaintiff, Danny Nichols. He alleges that the defendant's young son was playing hide-and-seek under his VW bug and somehow during the time he was hiding under the car, the kid set it on fire.
This is the defendant... He says while Joshua was under the car he innocently pulled a screwdriver out of somewhere and the fire started. ... so he doesn't feel he owes him a red cent. He is accused of failing to control his child.

Ann Salzmann
Intensive English Institute
University of Illinois