256 Int.Barn. 1 (LIBCoA 2010)
[On September 13, 2010 Mr. Ricks felt incredibly tired and decided to sue Sleep for not giving him enough energy to fend off the onslaught of Law School's impact upon his personal well-being. Plaintiff claims that Sleep has a duty to provide energy for such activities, and was negligent in not providing quality enough of energy such that plaintiff could reasonably pay attention in his Torts class. A jury in the District Court of Lame Internet Blogospheria found in favor of the plaintiff and assessed damages in the amount of an afternoon extra-power nap. Defendant appeals based upon erroneous jury instructions that the Plaintiff could not himself have been contributorily negligent with regard to amount of sleep.]
UNLEARNED FOOT, Justice of the Lame Internet Blogospheria Court of Appeals gives the opinion:
Affirmed for the defendant that jury instructions erred in the trial court by stating that Plaintiff could not be found contributorily negligent by not acquiring a sufficient quantity of sleep. A person such as the plaintiff should well know that Sleep's benefits are directly proportional to the quantity of hours that a buyer like the plaintiff purchases from the sleep store. This court finds that a jury could very reasonably determine that the plaintiff was contributorily negligent if the plaintiff did indeed lack in sufficient quantity of hours purchased the preceding evening from the sleep store.
Reversed and remanded for retrial, with instruction to determine whether the plaintiff could be contributorily negligent due to insufficient quantity of sleeping hours purchased the foregoing evening.
The District Court of Lame Internet Blogospheria assembled a new jury to determine the aforementioned component of the case at bar. The evidence in the original trial presented by the defense revealed that the plaintiff had purchased at most 6 hours of sleep the preceding evening. What result on retrial?
Wow, this law school thing must really work. I didn't understand any of that! ;)
ReplyDeleteSo what do you think though? Did the jury decide that 6 hours was too little sleep, and I'm contributorily negligent?
ReplyDeleteThe jury did find that 6 hours of sleep may be sufficient for said Law School activities, depending on the individual in question's optimum sleep cycle; however, those hours of sleep must be quality hours and poses the question: were the 6 hours of sleep used by Mr. Ricks complete and restful hours, or hour fraught with wakefulness? If the former, 6 hours is not a sufficient quantity of sleep for Mr. Ricks, and he will be found contributorily negligent. If the latter, the case must be removed from the Courts due to lack of evidence regarding Mr. Ricks' optimum sleep cycle and the ruling of the first trial will stand.
ReplyDeleteThe District Court of Lauraland thus enters judgment on the jury decision that Mr. Ricks is contributorily negligent. These 6 or less hours were restful, not prone to wakefulness. (Nice!)
ReplyDeleteAnyone else with a different approach?