Home

 › 

Entertainment

 › 

The 10 Most Ridiculous Animal Cases on ‘The People’s Court’

The 10 Most Ridiculous Animal Cases on ‘The People’s Court’

The popularity of reality television is at an all-time high these days. People occasionally love the idea of watching others make total fools of themselves in front of camera crews. Once something is captured for the world to see, it can be re-watched and reflected on forever. Tons of reality TV flubs turn into memes that go viral on social media platforms like Instagram, TikTok, and Twitter. A popular reality TV show to binge-watch happens to be “The People’s Court.”

There’s a reason this particular reality TV show has gone on for 26 seasons starting in 1997. It focuses on one judge named Marilyn Milian listening to small claims cases before making final decisions about plaintiffs and defendants. Oftentimes, the cases viewers see on “The People’s Court” are more hilarious and jaw-dropping than anything else.

Other popular reality TV shows in courtrooms include “Judge Judy,” “Lauren Lake’s Paternity Court,” and “Judge Mathis.” These shows are often compared to “The People’s Court” based on their premises. While we’re on the topic of shows that shed light on the justice system, click here to uncover the best detective shows of all time.

To compile this list of the most ridiculous animal cases on “The People’s Court,” 24/7 Tempo consulted several insightful sources. These include Science History, Brooklyn Law School, and Wired.

A dog mauling case

Closeup portrait of small funny beige mini chihuahua dog, puppy.
Source: Olena Tselykh / Shutterstock.com

One unfortunate case that happened on January 9, 2024, focused on the plaintiff claiming that the defendant’s unleashed dog mauled her dog to death. According to the defendant, the plaintiff’s nephew is at fault since the boy approached his canine while it was peacefully trying to go to the bathroom. Since the defendant’s canine was startled, it attacked the plaintiff’s dog in a moment of panic and rage. In the end, the judge ordered the defendant to pay the plaintiff $1,000.

A bird as a witness

sulphur crested cockatoo isolated on white background with clipping path
Source: Sutthiphong Chandaeng / Shutterstock.com

On January 23, 2024, “The People’s Court” revealed they were allowing a bird to serve as a witness on the stand. Although most individuals invited to speak on the stand are human beings, it’s obvious that the folks in charge of “The People’s Court” decided to make an exception. The bird in question was a parrot, and since parrots are capable of mimicking human speech, they’re also capable of communicating in a sense. The bird was officially sworn in for a chance to participate in the court case.

Bitten by a dog after trespassing?

Source: Milan Krasula / iStock via Getty Images

An episode of “The People’s Court” from November 27, 2023, focuses on a landlord suing her tenant for medical bills. She accrued hefty medical bills after getting bitten by two of his dogs. From his perspective, he shouldn’t have to pay a dime since she was trespassing on his property.

He claimed she entered his home unannounced and without permission. He further noted that she wouldn’t have been bitten by his dogs if she’d properly communicated with him ahead of time. When the judge uncovered that the dog-biting incident actually occurred in a common area of the complex, she found the defendant guilty.

Sick kitten

Source: VictoriaBee / Getty Images

A messy case on “The People’s Court” from September 8, 2021, pulled at the heartstrings of cat lovers everywhere. A man decided to sue a woman for selling him a Scottish fold kitten who died quickly after the sale closed. The cat was diagnosed with an aggressive immune virus and didn’t have any chance of survival.

The plaintiff sued the cat saleswoman for financial damages and irreparable emotional harm. She countersued him for aggravation and stress, claiming she’s only ever sold healthy kittens to buyers. In the end, the judge ruled in favor of the defendant, which meant the cat saleswoman didn’t have to pay anything for financial and emotional damages.

The dog lost control

Source: chendongshan / iStock via Getty Images

One of the more gory cases featured on “The People’s Court” took place on March 8, 2021. According to the plaintiff, the defendant lost control of his dog, and it resulted in a devastating injury. The defendant’s dog attacked the plaintiff’s dog so aggressively that the plaintiff’s dog ended up with bones sticking out of its leg.

The plaintiff believed she deserved enough money to cover the surgery and vet bills. The defendant argued he shouldn’t have to pay anything at all since he warned the plaintiff multiple times not to allow their dog to get too close. Ultimately, the judge ruled in favor of the defendant.

A horse’s suicide?

Source: YesPhotographers/Shutterstock

Another jaw-dropping case that happened on “The People’s Court” took place on April 21, 2022. The plaintiff claimed she boarded several show horses to the defendant’s facility before receiving a call that her championship horse was dead. The defendants claimed that the horse jumped into a hole on their property – as if the horse was committing suicide.

From their perspective, it was a freak accident that they shouldn’t take the blame for. The plaintiff sued them for the value of the horse, the cost of the horse’s life training, and the cost of the horse’s cremation. By the end of the episode, the judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff and ordered the defendants to cover the value of the horse, which was $3,000.

Slaughtered cows

herd of hereford cows in green grassy pasture on agricultural farm brown and white cows with white faces looking at camera in the countryside horizontal format room for type beef industry background
Source: Shawn Hamilton / Shutterstock.com

Cows were the subject of conversation during an episode of “The People’s Court” from March 19, 2024. According to the plaintiff, the defendant’s dogs slaughtered two of his cows and two unborn calves. In retaliation, the plaintiff shot and killed one of the dogs as he saw the attack going down.

He decided to sue the defendant for the cost of his two dead cows, but the defendant countersued him for the cost of her dead dog. The judge ordered the defendant to pay the plaintive $2,000 for the loss of his cows. She also stated that the plaintiff wouldn’t owe the defendant anything for her dead dog.

A fake taxidermy fish

Figure of fish on a white background
Source: Zadiraka Evgenii / Shutterstock.com

Some people consider taxidermy animals to be aesthetically pleasing pieces of decor around their homes. That was the case for a plaintiff suing a defendant on July 4, 2022, in an episode of “The People’s Court.” The buyer said he thought he was snagging a genuine taxidermy fish from the defendant.

It turned out to be nothing more than a plastic toy meant for children. The buyer took the defendant to court over the fraudulent sale, but the defendant argued that he never claimed the item was a genuine taxidermy fish in the first place. The judge ruled in favor of the plaintiff, forcing the defendant to refund the amount of $250 he was originally given for the fake fish.

The frogs were never paid for

Source: BrianLasenby / iStock via Getty Images

On December 29, 2023, a frog breeder sued a scamming customer on “The People’s Court.” The frog breeder says the defendant agreed to pay him for some pet frogs, but the defendant never actually shelled out the money. The defendant claimed the plaintiff offered to give him the frogs for free without any agreement about money in the first place.

In the end, the judge ordered the defendant to pay $800 for the frogs, plus the plaintiff’s court costs, plus any pre-judgment statutory interest that accrued from the date of the initial frog sale. Viewers could tell that Judge Milian was incredibly annoyed by the defendant during this episode.

Puppy parasites

Portrait of Long Haired chihuahua puppy smiling
Source: Larky78 / Shutterstock.com

An eye-opening case on “The People’s Court” from September 23, 2022, focused on a puppy with a parasites diagnosis. The plaintiff said she purchased a puppy from the defendant’s animal shop without prior knowledge of the puppy being sick. When she took the puppy to get tested for parasites, the results were positive.

She sued the defendant for selling a parasite-riddled puppy in hopes of getting the vet bills covered. Without substantial proof of the puppy’s diagnosis, the judge ruled in favor of the defendant. These animal cases are mind-boggling to think about! For more interesting animal coverage, quick care to find out about the 21 most intelligent animals in the world.

To top