The Highway Patrol of State X informed legislators of State X that motorists were causing accidents by consuming soft drinks while driving. The Highway Patrol was not overly concerned that drivers could keep only one hand on the wheel while consuming soft drinks. Instead, they were concerned that drivers often obstructed their own vision, and thus lost partial control of their automobiles, when they tilted their heads back and tipped their soft drink containers upward to consume the last of their soft drinks. In response, state legislators amended the State X Vehicle Code to make it a misdemeanor "to operate a motor vehicle while consuming any beverage from a can or bottle." If the concerns that motivated this bill are recorded in legislative history, should the new law apply to:

a. a driver who tilts her head back to drink water from a paper cup?

b. a driver who keeps his head level while he sips a soft drink through a straw from a bottle?

c. a driver who eats a sandwich in a way that distracts her and obstructs her vision?

In addressing these cases, ask yourself to what extent a court should adhere to the strict terms of the statute, even if such an interpretation in a specific case is not perfectly consistent with the legislative purpose. To what extent should the court interpret the statutory language flexibly to more closely achieve the legislative purpose?