Paul Kinsey and Harry Crane get into an argument at the office. After work, they both end up at the same bar for happy hour albeit at opposite ends. Paul orders one scotch & soda and sips it slowly over the course of an hour. Harry, on the other hand, orders four shots of whiskey and chases them with a pint of Guinness in the same time frame. (Harry also refuses to hand over his keys to a concerned bartender.) Paul and Harry both depart the bar at the same time, renewing their argument and shouting expletives at each other before entering their respective cars. As they exit the parking lot, their vehicles collide in an accident. Harry sues Paul, and the matter goes to trial, where Paul puts the bartender on the stand to testify that Harry drank four shots of whiskey and a pint of Guinness prior to the accident. Paul alleges this testimony demonstrates Harry's contributory negligence to the accident. Harry objects. stating the bartender's testimony is irrelevant. ' Should the court sustain Harry's objection? Why or why not? On which Ru|e(s) do you base your answer? r