A finals week legal prompt, for my beloved class of pre-law graduates, and anyone who wishes to weigh in. Two friends have plans to drive from the library, pick up some friends, and go to the mountains. Friend 1 (plaintiff) gets a ride to the location where the driver is going to pick up friends. Friend 1 calls 5’s on shotgun and goes inside to pee. Driver puts the car in accessory to wait for friends. Friend 2 (defendant) comes outside, sees the car, calls shotgun and takes the seat. Friend 1 comes out, finds friend 2 unwilling to give up the shotgun seat, and Files suit in bro-court. He argues that A) he called 5’s so he is entitled to the shotgun seat, and B) that the car being in accessory, and the driver not exiting or turning off the car, constitutes only one trip in which he would be entitled to shotgun even without calling 5’s. The defendant argues that A) the rules of 5’s apply only to residential seats as commonly understood (couches, chairs.) and B) that the engine being off constitutes a separate trip in which all previous seat-calling is null and void. How does the court rule?
Posted on: Tue, 13 May 2014 01:23:22 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015