Avaliações de usuários

While the judge, bailiff and professional consultants are REAL,the PLAINTIFF AND RESPONDENT are POORLY TRAINED ACTORS... 😠😠

Just seen an episode where the plaintiff was awarded almost $300,00 for her ignorance at a concert sound check. Common sense is to not stand beside a 6 ft speaker during sound check as well as wear earplugs which were available! It was on the back of her VIP badge and she neglected to read it yet she was awarded the full amount of her complaint because of her irresponsibility. Not the worst ruling on this show but in the top 5.

Yes, this is fake. Yes the plaintiffs and defendants are actors and actresses. The award, usually in the hundreds of thousands, tend to be problematic. I would think such high amount would require lawyers and juries to present the case. Plus prior to the court, the judge tends to determine if there is plausible suit before allowing it to go forward. So it's not a one day type of incident unless you're going to a small claims court where the maximum is usually set to 5,000 or so.

Most of the cases on this show involve a one-time incident where the plaintiff enters the defendant's property and somehow gets injured. Such things like getting attacked by an animal, getting hit by something or somehow falling down. Most of the judgement are very simple and too simple for the value of which is awarded. Most of the fitness related cases are obviously fake. Many gyms and facilities make you sign a waiver which is impossible for the courts to assign fault unless the fitness place did something obviously different from just offering fitness. Plus nearly every single house related incident in this show would be covered by your home owners insurance. There is no way they can double sue you after getting money from the insurance company and then in turn to sue you. The case would most likely be thrown out unless you didn't pay for your insurance or your insurance found you at fault and refused to pay.

If you don't believe these are fake, try looking up some of the cases name. There was one episode of a singer doing a stage dive and ending up drop kicking a fan in the back of the head. The singer does not exist anywhere despite the supposedly popularity of the singer having a tour.

Regardless, the show is rather interesting. I like the end where the lawyers come on and explain their opinions on the results. I do believe these are real lawyers but their opinions are based on the fake show. They do have a number listed under their name and they seem to exist but they are all personal injury lawyers.

This is very disappointing to know that all Litigants are not real and are actors Only. Very disappointing to know. Ugh 😐.

Frivolous lawsuits + dramatic fever + bad acting + ridiculous awards = total waste of airtime.

The only entertainment we ever got from watching this show was betting on how many thousands of dollars would be awarded to the plaintiff.. Stupid decisions; no rhyme or reason for the decisions. Who awards someone with $ 170,000 for zits they got from someone's hot tub? I find it hard to believe that this episode is a reenactment of a real court proceeding that occurred somewhere in this country.

bad acting, very flakey actors, it's laughable. There must be something with more credibility that could be aired. This show insults the intelligence of reasonable people.

Very badly acted.This is not a real show.It is ridiculous.

The judge's verdict awards are laughable and completely unrealistic. None of the defendants would come close to being able to pay these excessive, comical verdict amounts. THAT is not mentioned; the plaintiffs have to actually COLLECT those outlandish verdicts - not likely. I'm in the Personal injury biz and know. I do get a good laugh out of the show.

If you're in a sad or bad mood, take a look at this show. It's unbelievably funny! I really didn't want to believe it, but I just had to Google the show and found that the cases are re enactments. That's fine, but the actors are just the bottom of the barrel.

Okay so i see most reviews saying his program is nothing but fake well if you dont go in looking for realness you might find you enjoy this show cause real or fake its extrmely fun to watch happy watching

I been watching the show, some of the people are so fake in there crying, there is never tears, and they over react, and another thing some of these people i think are out for the money, some of them put them2 in harm way them turn around and sue, come on u put yourself in a bad situation and u know u r at fault and have the nerve to sue someone there is something wrong with that picture and as for the judge some of your verdict is so wrong and the plaintiffs dont deserve a win in their case. Just like the show i watched the lady spills sour cream and leaves never reports it, then comes back and sees that it is still there, and she walks through it and wins what the heck, if she reported the mess it would of got cleaned up, how was the workers or owner know that there was a spill, if the plaintiff saw that it was still there why would she go down that aisle she was out for money and in my eyes that was her fault she was hurt. To the judge your ruling was wrong in so many ways. There are other cases that people shouldn't of won. The judge tocme only hears what he wants to hear.

I have always enjoyed the show. Judge Gino, however, needs to get better control of his courtroom. Litigants should not be talking to each other or speaking out of turn.

Don't care if it's fake. It's fun to watch Judge Gino Bronson is a good funny judge that being said I give it 8 Stars if they didn't show the same episode everyday I've seen the same episodes over and over I saw there's 120 some episodes y do they only play a few episodes over and over. Someone's looking at these reviews that can do something about this please stop showing the same episodes over and over on Bounce TV.

While most TV shows are indeed scripted to some extent, the Executive Produce refuses to admit it, saying he wouldn't personally use the terms "scripted" or "actors". Since each episode is based on headline cases and not real parties, those individuals mu be represented by... actors. In order to properly represent the cases they were not personally involved in, those actors must then follow a... script.

I get it - a lot of shows have scripts! It is just very hard to take the show seriously. What could perhaps be a great competitor to the likes of other daytime court shows, Personal Injury Court takes overacting and wild judgements (many cases are split liability with no explanation of division) to a whole new level. Dramatic scenes of near-fainting in court, wild "crying" episodes without a single tear shed - it is all just too much.

The people look like they are acting. Their injuries bandages sometimes looks like cosplay.

If they are hurt physically, emotionally and financially then why are there so much laughter coming from the judge, audience, def and plaintiff.

Maybe it's real and they are just mocking the people by loose exaggerating and being jokey about almost every case. Iunno?

The show is beyond fake and obviously fake. The injured party is always still injured with an arm in a sling, on crutches, bandages, etc Even if the injury supposedly happed months ago. I watched one where a doctor vacationing at a resort fell off a cliff near the hotel. Well i googled the doctor. No info on him. Most doctors would have some mention somewhere on a hospital staff list or personal site. The resort does not exist. Closest thing i found to it has no hiking trails anywhere near it. So what resort is not on google maps nor has a website?

The acting is terrible. This is more of a train wreck type of watch. You want to look away but can't.

I had a feeling this show was fake, but I Googled it anyways...and it is. How is this ok? I hadn't watched in a while, but today I did and there was this case about bats attacking some lady...and no lie, she "came to court" with somehow bright red, fresh-looking cuts and scratched on her arms...and face! I had to look this show up after that. At first I thought it was a show for people who wanted to straight milk their injuries for everthing they're worth. But after I saw those red Sharpie marks all over her body, I knew it was bs. For shame, it's like they're not even trying to make it believable.

I believe he was wrong on this. No one but the woman that had waxed herself got anything. It was her own fault. It was very disappointing he normally does good with his verdict but this one was awful and he gave her way to much money for a skin infection she brought on herself.

This is the only show I get to watch at work on lunch. Love it so fun Gino the best

Ok, this is just flat out fake. Yes, most court shows are and "reality" TV is actually scripted, but this takes it a step further. For example, in S1 E89 Jackson V King a woman claims her hair was destroyed by a hairdresser. However, it's very obvious that she's wearing a "bald cap", and you can easily see the cap's line around her forehead.

So in the end, it's really just a made up show with actors and actresses pretending they got injured and getting fake judgements for your entertainment. These are not real cases, these are likely not even reenactments of real cases. It's just afternoon garbage.

I and and another family member love Personal Injury Court. Judge Gino is always fair and leaves me wondering how he's going to rule. He abides by the law and hears each litigant ample opportunities to plead their case. I wish more judges handled cases as he does.

I'm his number one fan and appreciate his fairness and honesty even when I want the outcome to be otherwise.

Thank you Judge Gino for your sincerity and forthrightness when hearing the cases that come before you. Some of the injuries presente sixes are so horrific and yet you review all ensuring fairness. I love your show and wish you had more than 2 hours of showtime.

This show has gross acting is pathetic. The only reason I watch nothing better on at the time shown. Lol. Got like 200 channels. Nothing better lol.

I caught the show while channel surfing one morning and it was amusing. As a retired Trauma nurse it took all of ten seconds to tell the injuries were fake & the litigants paid actors. I about fell over laughing at the sight of a young woman (supposedly) carting around a massive Halo stabilization rig into court. Yeah, right. Of course her doctor's going to approve her bouncing about in a vehicle to go to court in that set-up & risk infection because the lawsuit couldn't wait six more weeks til she was out of it! OK, so I catch a few more & they're more or less the same. Sometimes the actors did a fairly credible job depicting the claimed injuries. Other times they were campy.

The so- called medical & other 'experts' were mostly laughable. Amazing a six-digit award for damages can be determined by 45 seconds of medical 'testimony'. Absent entirely is legal counsel for either side. Um, over the years we've sued people in small claims court & I've had to testify in others and not once did we step into court without our lawyers present!

Judge Gino Brogdon makes things even more wacko as he gets so wrapped up in the stories he's almost a caricature. At times he becomes totally emotionally involved in one side or the other, usually commiserating with the injured party. "Oh, my! That must've been awful!", or "As much as I sympathize with your terrible injuries unfortunately I find you 51% at fault and, as much as it pains me, the law does not allow me to award you anything." Having had to testify or attend some of these types of cases in real life I know no judge talks or acts like this. But Judge Gino Brogdon does make things entertaining. Hubby & I began betting on who would win & the size of the 'judgement'.

Once we'd seen most of the episodes, we didn't bother with reruns.

It's mostly a "He-Said-She-Said" kind of scenario, and the one who were able to convince the judge somehow gets a favorable ruling. The factors such as some people are not as Articulate or as Coherent as others are totally disregarded. The judge only allows third party resources that will help him understand more the nature of injury, or how some things work. Take the case of the aged dog lover that "slipped on a puddle of dog pee". It could have been settled with an invitation to the first aid responder to verify IF there was or there wasn't a puddle of pee that caused the old woman to slip. I'm just sorry for those defendants who don't get to articulate themselves more.