In the hallowed halls of The People’s Court, Judge Judy is accustomed to seeing family feuds and neighborly disputes. But on this day, the case centered on something far more relatable to any parent of a teenager: a youth group gathering, an over-excited 17-year-old, and a casualty of “friendly fire”—a broken recliner.
A Quiet Party Turns Costly
The scene was set on June 14, 2014, at the home of Mr. Basch. His daughter, Sharon, was hosting a planned event for their youth group. It wasn’t a “wild party” or a “booze-filled” rager; it was a gathering of about 30 teenagers between the ages of 13 and 18. Among the guests was Alan, a 17-year-old who was about to learn a very expensive lesson in physics.
As the event progressed, Alan spotted his friend, Eben, sitting comfortably in a recliner. Overcome with excitement and teenage bravado, Alan didn’t just walk over to say hello. Instead, he took a literal “leap of faith.”
“I leaped onto my friend to give him a hug,” Alan explained to a skeptical Judge Judy.
The impact was immediate. A distinct “crack” echoed from the chair, though Alan and his friend—caught up in the moment—didn’t realize the severity of the damage. They sat there for a while longer, noticing the chair felt “funny” and was stuck, but they simply proceeded with the event. It wasn’t until later that the grim truth surfaced: the recliner had lost its ability to recline.
Defining Responsibility
When the case moved to the courtroom, the debate wasn’t just about the furniture—it was about character. Judge Judy, never one to mince words, challenged Alan on the meaning of “responsibility.”
The exchange was a classic “Judge Judy” moment. Alan struggled to define the word without using the filler “like,” prompting Judy to lament that “America is going down the toilet.” However, she eventually guided him to the core of the issue:
“When you do something foolish and it impacts someone else’s property, the only way you’re going to learn not to do it again is if you take responsibility for it and pay for it.”
Alan argued that he had apologized “in every way, shape, or form” via Facebook messages, but an apology doesn’t fix a snapped mechanism. He expressed frustration that the requested repair amount had fluctuated from $700 to $950, suggesting that the plaintiffs were being inconsistent.
The Final Verdict: $950 Hug
Judge Judy examined the evidence: a receipt from 2011 showing a purchase price of $436.78, with an extension bringing the total value to $950.
Alan questioned how the court could be sure the chair couldn’t be fixed. Judy’s response was characteristically blunt: a recliner is meant to recline. If the feature to pull out the leg rest is broken and the chair is stuck, it is no longer a recliner. Since Alan hadn’t brought his own independent expert to prove it was fixable, he was left holding the bill for the replacement.
In the end, Judge Judy awarded the plaintiff the full $950. It was a steep price for a hug, but as the parties were excused, one thing was certain: Alan would think twice before “leaping” into his next greeting.
