that Crabtree was visibly intoxicated at the time he was served the glass of wine would require a jury to speculate. [¶ 29] The contact at the accident scene between Sparda and Crabtree was brief. There is no evidence to link Crabtree’s post-collision appearance and behavior to intoxication before he was served the wine or to Crabtree’s conduct and appearance at the time of service. Other explanations for Crabtree’s conduct after the collision, such as a collision-caused head injury or physical disability, are as consistent with the facts in evidence and also suggest nothing about Crabtree’s appearance when he was served. See, e.g., Dudley v. Hannaford Bros. Co., 190 F.Supp.2d 69, 71-72 (D.Me.2002) (plaintiff’s physical disability mimicked intoxication); see also Green, 673 A.2d at 219 (<HOLDING>). [¶ 30] Furthermore, because the specific time
holding that plaintiffs are ordinarily entitled to instructions consonant with their theory of the case where evidentiary support for the theory exists holding that the plaintiffs misconceived legal theory did not preclude it from obtaining relief under another theory holding that defensive theory must be submitted to jury when theory is raised by evidence from any source holding summary judgment appropriate when the facts in evidence supported another plausible theory not the plaintiffs theory of the case holding that the jury need not agree on the theory supporting the conviction if there is sufficient evidence to support either theory