A well known judge recently ruled in the Hillsborough county courtroom that it is perfectly OK, to kill animals and children. Even, after receiving evidence, she ruled that the evidence was inadmissible and therefore, ruled that in good conscious she saw no need to rule the dispute in the plaintiff's favor.
Oleander plants are deadly poisonous plants that live in Florida and are extremely toxic to both animals and children. There have been several incidents where children played with the plants or used branches from the plants to grill. In fact one little boy died because he used a branch of an Oleander to cook a hot dog with over the grill.
But the Judge, she didn't care
Some plaintiffs in her court room showed to her veterinarian bills that were incurred due to their neighbors negligence by having not cut these bushes down and the leaves were allowed to blow into the plantiff's yard. Their negligence was established by two different letters their HOA board sent to them addressing the matter along with pictures to prove their case. The result, their little 14lb. dachshund ingested them and went into convulsions. The plantiff's rushed the little dachshund to the emergency room to be treated for Oleander poisoning, not once but on two separate occasions all as a result of their neighbors incompliance.
The bills were shown, the statement on the bills explained the symptoms the dog experienced and this Judge decided that this information, evidence and proof was inadmissible in her courtroom. Well I ask? What is Admissible then? On two different occasions the dog almost died. Well it take the death of another child to prove these plants are both dangerous and poisonous? They may be beautiful but they shouldn't be allowed around our homes or in our parks. What do you think? Do you find her ruling fair? My question is what kind of judges do we have in our courtrooms today? I thought they were there to protect the people, what if it had been one of her children?
