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?