Originally posted by HuffyCane:
Jets v. Chicken
2012 DaCool 416 (UCF Spring 2012)
The decision of the Man Court, Justice Huffy presiding.
The plaintiff in this action asserts a violation of numerous man and party fouls committed by the Defendant during the so called UCF Knights Spring football game and associated social activities surrounding said event. Apparently both plaintiff and defendant require inordinate amounts of alcohol to voluntarily attend such an inept exhibition of offensive football.
Plaintiff asserts two causes of action: First, wilful violation of Man Rules by the Defendant by stealing his drink whilst in the process of assisting a fellow bro. In the alternative, the Plaintiff states that the Defendant committed negligence of the man rules by the Defendant failing to ascertain the owner of the subject drink. The Plaintiff pleads for enhanced sentencing citing aggravating circumstances, to wit: this was a repeat offense, the Defendant failed to bring adequate beer for personal consumption to said tailgate, the Defendant drank a beverage normally consumed in public by only women, children, and various members of the Democratic Party.
Regarding the allegation of negligence, four basic questions must be resolved.
First, did the Defendant have a duty to the Plaintiff regarding the drink? The answer is clearly yes. The Defendant came upon an unattended drink at a tailgate. As all alcohol is precious at a remote, heavy drinking location, a reasonable bro under the circumstances, would have immediately canvassed the area to find the bro that had mistakenly set their drink down. You cant be a bro, unless you treat other bros like a brother. One brother has a duty to protect the drink of other brothers.
Second, did the actions of the Defendant cause a breach of the duty? Here, the answer is clearly yes. The Defendant had the last clear chance to find the true owner of the drink. Instead, he misappropriated the drink for his own use without consulting fellow bros, as a reasonable bro would do.
Third, was the Defendant's action the legal cause of the injury? Here again, the answer is yes. There was an unattended drink and the Defendant chose to drink it himself. Clearly, he is the legal cause of the loss.
Fourth, what are the Plaintiff's damages? This is a difficult question. While being deprived of a drink is a serious hardship and constitutes a serious offense, in this case, the loss was Tennessee whiskey. The court takes judicial notice of the widespread availability of quality Kentucky bourbon throughout Knight country. At a normal southern tailgate, there are multiple types of alcohol available. The Plaintiff chose, for some inexplicable reason, to voluntarily consume the vile swill known as Tennessee charcoal filtered whiskey. As a result, in the eyes of the court, the damages are reduced. Indeed, under other circumstances, the Defendant might have actually been doing a bro a favor by shielding a fellow bro from such a party foul. At another tailgate, such a loss might have happened, even if the Defendant were not present, and the Plaintiff might have continued to party with a different drink and not noticed the loss. While I find the Plaintiff to be 1% guilty of contributory negligence for setting the drink down without justification or necessity, I find the Defendant 99% contributory negligent for his failure to act to safeguard a fellow bro's drink.
Even if it is disputed that negligence was involved, a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the Defendant, by picking the drink up off the cooler, created a bailment. The Defendant, as the bailee, must safeguard the drink until the bailor returned. Instead, he converted the drink to his own use. In this case, the Defendant arrived at a tailgate in the South with only 8 beers. Ignoring the suspect nature of such a protest since beers are not sold in denominations of 8, the court accepts the Defendants pleading as fact for the purposes of this decision. No self respecting bro brings only 8 beers to a tailgate. Indeed, the court opines to itself whether this bro harbors an ambition to remain chaste throughout his natural life. Protestations about this bro's sexuality are disregarded by this court, because regardless of sexual preference, no person that gains the attraction of the Defendant would be satisfied with any bro that comes to a tailgate with only 8 beers.
More over, the bro brought non-alcoholic beverages to a tailgate that he purchased using a coupon. This court needs no further evidence to conclude that this bro is either woefully cheap or on hard times. The court concludes that he is woefully cheap. The bro is presumed to be gainfully employed or has access to federal financial aid. The Spring Game is a single event with several months to plan ahead and save money for your own drinks. This is not the Fall, when occaisonally a bro gets tapped out partying too hard on one Saturday and has no money for beer the following weekend. Under those circumstances, a bro has the obligation ONE TIME ONLY, to supply a fellow bro with beer under the presumption that said beer will be repaid as quickly as possible or other compensation is paid as appropriate, i.e., looking the other way while the cool bro commits his own foul while hitting on the mooching bro's sister, etc.
In this case, the Defendant had a history of mooching. He arrived at the tailgate having purchased discounted soft drinks, rather than purchasing a single tall boy to slowly sip throughout the afternoon until a beer was offered to him. Therefore, I conclude he acted as a serial moocher. A predator. He waited for the opportunity to seize another bro's drink for his own use. He is guilty of wiful violations of the Man Code.
Aggravating his guilt for the purposes of sentencing is the nature of the party status of the Plaintiff. The court takes judicial notice of the grill that this bro has supplied to the fellow Knight bro community. Such grills are legends. Men with such grills are unselfish contributors to other bros and should be revered and honored. These men deserve tribute from other bros, in the form of 1) beer, 2) items to be grilled, 3) that really good potato salad you convinced your ex girlfriend to make for you one last time, or 4) chicks you arent interested in but would still bang if nothing else shows up and you have the chance.
However, Justice Huffy was trained in dispute resolution in the Great State of Oklahoma, where all men are bros and all conflicts are resolved in some sort of combat. Masculinity can only be questioned after comabt. There is no pleading in internet forums in Oklahoma. You either whoop the bros ass if he deserves it, or if he doesnt, you out drink him so you, him, and every other bro who witnesses the feat of strength knows that the offender isnt truly the same bro that you are.
Since the Defendant is guilty but pleads necessity, it is the judgment of this court that the parties shall meet on the afternoon of the first tailgate of the fall at a time and place mutually agreeable to the parties for the purposes of settling this dispute, once and for all. Each party shall bring one 12 pack of a brand of beer that they mutually agree upon. If no agreement can be made, Bud Light shall be the beer used as punishment for their failure to work together as bros. At said time and place, the bros will engage in a boat race to decide this question. After all, God was a witness to the alleged crime. If the Defendant was guilty, God will decide the matter during combat.
A boat race/pole vault consists of the two parties removing the top from the bottle of the beer, placing all of the beer into a solo cup, drinking all of the beer through a straw. After all of the beer is consumed, to become the winner, the bro must place the solo cup upside down on top of his head to demonstrate to all the other witnessing bros that all of the beer has been drunk from the cup.
The winner of this contest keeps ALL of the beer.
If jets is truly aggrieved, God will decide the matter and he will take with him 11 times the damage he has suffered in the form of 22 beers. If he loses, then he wasnt bro enough to complain in the first place.
If FC wins, then God is on his side or has taken pity on him by giving him enough beer to last through the fall since he drinks like a non-bro. If he loses, this is further karma and confirmation that he doesnt have the bro status of others at the tailgate and the habit of stealing others drinks will be shamed away.
This is the judgment of the court. There are no appeals. Post pics of said contest or gtfo. May the best bro win.
This post was edited on 4/16 11:51 AM by HuffyCane
