The craziest thing about this episode is that this actually happened to Glenn Howerton, he was eating cereal while driving, someone crashed in his car, and he spilled cereal all over his car lol
On the podcast, Glen talked about how he was telling the guys how much money it would cost to take care of his car and they didn’t understand why and then he told them it was because there was milk in the vents
This is the episode I show to people to get them into the show. It gives a good glimpse at all the characters and is a great example of how the show plays with issues.
Glenn Howerton walked into the writers room,told them what happened, and they knew this epsiode was gonna be made lol this is a true story, the start is at least
It's Frank, the only "assumed risk" that Dennis takes that wouldn't absolve him of guilt should be based on his own driving, not crazy people who literally can't see properly and crash into you. Bumping into someone holding a glass is also 100% on you even if everyone is aware that could have happened. I mean if you really wanted to take it that far, victims should always have to pay for damages because everyone knows a car accident could happen. And for Frank, while cereal specifically is unexpected, it's not absurd to be prepared for any kind of liquid being in a car on the road and spilling as a result of your crash, like a regular ass coffee, because the same thing could have happened if Dennis was sipping coffee or wine.
@@jasondrake323Nah. Only damage was to the exterior. Eat outside the car like a person. If some dope is cleaning his revolver in his car,you bump into him and the moron blows his face off cause of a slight bump that does no damage to said vehicle...are YOU at fault? Is that even involuntary manslaughter? Take some responsibility,driver Now,if Frank had caused both interior and exterior damage,it might be a different matter but Narcissist boy should have lived by Franks words..."I knew the risk.," I must add,im not familiar with American law but the fact that nothing is damaged,there's no grievances if Dennis didnt eat a bowl of cereal in the car. Frank not having lenses however,which they kidnda gloss over...yeah,to me its a fascinating case.
@@christofferjenzen78 Holding a gun to your face is not the same as merely having a liquid in your car, even if it's milk in a cereal bowl. If my coffee spills because some douche who shouldn't have a license hits me, that's on them not me. Yes it's a risk that I'm aware of, but so is me literally dying in an accident. The responsibility still goes to the cause, the dude who hits me while I'm at a dead stop.
@@jasondrake323 The car and gun bit is an extreme hypothetical but it does beg the questions of how "needed" the object in the car is or how necessary. You could have some hypothetical beverage, the first coke ever produced etc and you drink it in the car,someone runs into you,or a slight bump,no damage but now the expensive drink is spillt plus parts of the interior is fucked. So cause of your misunderstanding...or mine,where one should consume this very expensive beverage is not really a car. So when the glass can breaks after impact,the expensive drink is wasted and parts of the interior is ruined and he's gonna sue for damages and the 600 dollar soda. Although a normally prized and generic Sprite in a can would nr no trouble,no spill or breakage. So now you just dont ram people ever so gently,you gotta take into consideration and factor in the cost of the whole ordesl that could just have been avoided if people knew how to not make their good and drink choices while driving everybody else personal burden. Dont drink while you drive and you'll be fine. I dont know what the law says but if Dennis's case would hold up in court,its scary. The metaphor with the gun is apt cause thats an unlucly man accidentally clipping the guy Infront of him who also feels others are responsible for the crazy items he handles in his car and that bump leads to accidental head blown off. A bump doing zero damage to the vehicle should not really be punished. I mean,to what degree do I really have to be involved inte your insane,reckless shenanigans? If its a real accident,I say the moron eating cereal,a meal destined to go flying all over the car and much too sensitive,it spills to easy and everyone have to tip toe sround this asshole who then blamed others for a situation he created.
Omg I love how on their podcast, the whole episode was written because Glenn came in raging about being rear ended and the interior of his car is ruined. All the milk, all the cereal, are in the vents and seats. And he couldn’t see what was so outrageous so they wrote the episode without him then presented it to him after he cooled off 😂
The legal expertise channel "LegalEagle" has reviewed a number of Sunny episodes involving court or arbitration (which there are a handful of, believably enough). He's reviewed this one too, and mentions it makes a couple good arguments. Particularly Charlie establishing the Donkey-Brain defense. Edit: Apparently I need to say this because some of y'all got Donkey-Brains. The Donkey-Brain defense ITSELF isn't a good argument, but rather the way Charlie sets up and delivers the argument is how a lawyer would try to establish his clients character. In this case proving Frank was of sound-mind. aka Not a Donkey-Brained man.
The only argument that would be remotely applicable to a real life legal system that is just and works (not America) would be the judge of character argument. Other than that, this whole thing is so silly lol but in the best way possible
@@Rothchild0310 It's not that the donkey-brain argument itself is a good argument, but rather the framework Charlie is using is how to present a presence or lack of presence of character in someone. Not that having or not having donkey-brains is a legitimate argument, lol. Come on now, you don't got donkey-brains, do ya?
This is the perfect episode to celebrate my birthday with, I turned 22 today, I’m happy to start it off with you guys and the cereal defence legendary episode😂 🎂 from car crashes to creationism 😂
Honestly, S8 might be the most consistently great season. 5 is the only other one I can think of that doesn’t have a single mediocre episode (even if other prime seasons like 4, 7, & 10 have a several all time episodes, they’re less consistent overall)
2:49 Just some extra information on this guys, in the US it definitely matters what the person being hit is holding. Because it’s a traffic violation to eat/drink anything while driving. It’s “distracted driving” it doesn’t matter if you’re at a stop light, that just means you’re “not in motion” you’re still on the road “driving”. US law is very complicated
I am loving going through this journey with you guys, honestly its one of the highlights of my week when i see another sunny upload. Would love to support you financially but i have three kids and am pretty much constantly struggling with money but if that ever changes i will buy you both your own donkey brain clearance certificate.
If you tried explaining this episode to someone it would sound ridiculous, and yet for the gang it fits what they would do perfectly which is why this show is so engaging because who ever would've imagined such an argument about mac when this is technically all about eating cereal in a car lolll
@@croissantpower Eating cereal while driving is pretty crazy. Also, he couldn't argue against Mac's analogy between faith and science. It may appear tricky initially, but everyone should be able to dismantle those kinds of arguments
@CDexie I wouldn't say its idiotic just silly to eat cereal whilst stopping at lights. And getting religion loonies to see reason is almost impossible, I don't think struggling to argue with stupidity is idiotic
Can you. Dlieve after all the crazy sh*t they’ve done and after all the laughs thsy STILL have more to go? Its insane to me how good this show is…Ibdont understand how anyone can compare any other comedy show to this…its not even close imo
I would do it 50/50. Frank is at fault for driving dangerously, AND Dennis is at fault for driving while hindering his abilities to drive in case something happens. The damages are both their fault, so, 50/50
7:37 how does that argument make any sense? Assuming responsibility for a potential spill implies spill that’s your fault, not someone else blasting into you
