Stores Liable For Selling Gas To Drunks

[jlmiracle 7]

State's High Court Rules Stores Liable For Selling Gas To Drunks
Posted: 8/22/2005 5:06:30 PM



The state Supreme Court has ruled that store owners can be sued for causing injuries in a drunken driving accident if they sold gas to an intoxicated driver. The court ruled in a lawsuit filed by two men who were severely injured in 2000 when they were struck head-on by Brian Lee Tarver, who later pleaded guilty to vehicular assault and driving under the influence. Before the accident, Tarver bought gas at an Exxon owned by East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Company. A Knox County judge had dismissed the lawsuit, but the Supreme Court disagreed and sent the case back to Knox County for trial. The lawsuit, filed by Gary L. West and Michell B. Richardson, alleged the gas station employees knew Tarver was drunk and that Tarver's car would not have reached the location of the crash if he had not been allowed to buy gas.
________________________________________________

I couldn't believe when I saw this on the news last night. I guess we can expect even higher gas prices.

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[wmw999 2,588]

Seems like people are trying to find *THE LINE* between responsible behavior and "he had money."

If the people at the gas station knew he was shitfaced and was going to keep driving, was there something reasonable they could have done? Kind of like the bartender who keeps selling drinks and then hands the guys his keys?

On the other hand, how the heck do they know? Me, I pay at the pump the vast majority of the time.

We all get pissed at the guy who sells guns to criminals, or sells an undersized canopy to a newbie with money. We "expect" better behavior.

There is no line, is there

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[jlmiracle 7]

I, like you, pay at the pump also with a cc or debit card. I see very few people actually go inside and pay for gas anymore.

I live in one f-uped state.

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[rehmwa 2]

one step closer to the end of the world

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Shotgun 1]

Quote

If the people at the gas station knew he was shitfaced and was going to keep driving, was there something reasonable they could have done? Kind of like the bartender who keeps selling drinks and then hands the guys his keys?

I think the bartender selling a drunk person more drinks has a little more responsibility than someone selling them gas. For one thing, the bartender would have first-hand knowledge that the person IS drunk. (Not that I really think bartenders should be held liable for drunk drivers.)

Quote

On the other hand, how the heck do they know? Me, I pay at the pump the vast majority of the time.

Me too. I can't even remember the last time I spoke with an actual person when buying gas.

[jlmiracle 7]

Quote

one step closer to the end of the world

everyone run for cover aahhahahahhahahahaahahahhahahhaahhaahahh

j

Be kinder than necessary because everyone you meet is fighting some kind of battle.

[billvon 3,116]

I think this is one of those cases that you can't really judge until you get the details.

Did the guy stick a credit card in, pump the gas, then just drive off? No way is the station liable. Was he so drunk he couldn't get the nozzle into the tank, and got one of the attendants to help him? Then they have some responsibility for the ensuing crash.

[sfzombie13 324]

so what if the bartender sells drinks to a guy who's drunk? it is clearly not nis responsibility to to find the guy a ride...this is just one more example of the real problem in this country, nobody needs to be held accountable for their own actions. blame someone else, then sue them....it's not your fault you got blitzed then went out for a pack of smokes, the bartender should have known you were gonna kill someone, the gas station attendant should have known you were the driver, not his drunk friend paying for the gas, it's ok, not your fault.....sorry, this just really pisses me off.

_________________________________________
Si hoc legere scis nimium eruditionis habes

[Shotgun 1]

I don't think that the bartender should be held accountable for a drunk person's actions. If you are going to go out drinking then you need to either not drink enough to impair your driving or make driving arrangements prior to getting drunk - your responsibility.

I was just pointing out that the bartender is much more likely to be aware of the status of your drunkenness than a gas station attendant is. The bartender has a pretty good idea how many drinks you have had; for all the gas station attendant knows, you might just be a weirdo that smells funny.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Was he so drunk he couldn't get the nozzle into the tank, and got one of the attendants to help him? Then they have some responsibility for the ensuing crash.

So this snot nosed teenager is working at the station for minimum wage. helps a customer. Should have called the cops at the time, but he isn't too bright. now the gas station has to hire someone more expensive, train them to recognize these situations (not always as blatant) and passes the cost on. The snot nose gets fired and then sues the station too - pass the cost on.

The drunk driver is responsible - his decisions were to drink to excess and drive. Just as well blame the road builders and the car makers. What about the liquor industry? What about the dealer than sold the cars to the two people? What about the county IE that programed the local traffic lights?

Suppose they helped him gas up and end up financially liable to some ludicrous amount? Next, gas stations will have to set policy to ensure sobriety of customers.

There goes Pay-at-the-pump. Won't work if they have to do a sobriety check. Now we sue them for the time lost having to go inside to pay. But in a strange twist, the stations end up ahead due to an increase in sales of Gardetto snack packs, gum and sodas.

So it all works out anyway.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[billvon 3,116]

>The drunk driver is responsible - his decisions were to drink to
>excess and drive.

I agree. He bears most of the responsibility.

>Just as well blame the road builders and the car makers. What about
> the liquor industry? What about the dealer than sold the cars to the
> two people? What about the county IE that programed the local
> traffic lights?

Right. Because that's exactly the same thing as helping a guy who is too drunk to aim a gas nozzle to get back on the road.

[tcnelson 1]

Quote

I think this is one of those cases that you can't really judge until you get the details.

Did the guy stick a credit card in, pump the gas, then just drive off? No way is the station liable. Was he so drunk he couldn't get the nozzle into the tank, and got one of the attendants to help him? Then they have some responsibility for the ensuing crash.

i second that assessment.

"Don't talk to me like that assface...I don't work for you yet." - Fletch
NBFT, Deseoso Rodriguez RB#1329

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>I agree. He bears most of the responsibility.

"most" of the responsibility . How can someone be 'mostly' responsible - it's a binary concept on/off

Here's a good quote for you to misuse in other arenas - but this still applies to the driver (who, to his credit - what's left of it, apparently admitted he was drunk and driving)

Admiral Hyman G. Rickover: "Responsibility is a unique concept: It can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it. Even if you do not recognize it or admit its presence you cannot escape it. If responsibility is rightfully yours, no evasion, or ignorance or passing the blame can shift the burden to someone else. Unless you can point your finger at the man who is responsible when something goes wrong, then you have never had anyone really responsible."

Decide what the attendant's responsibilities are - not after the fact of an incident, but always. Then you get closer to the truth.

Personally, if 'they' would just design a gas nozzle that recognizes a drunk fueler - then program it to douse the fueler in that case and light a spark. Then this never would have happened. Easy, elegant and saves on total fuel consumption.

Quote

>Just as well blame the road builders and the car makers. What about the liquor industry? What about the dealer than sold the cars to the two people? What about the county IE that programed the local traffic lights?

Right. Because that's exactly the same thing as helping a guy who is too drunk to aim a gas nozzle to get back on the road.

1 - So you have the line drawn exactly in your little subjective world. Now go make the entire legal system follow your lead and not cross that boundary. Plus how it is the gas company (East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Company) and not the specific attendant that's getting sued? good luck.

2 - So you now have 'fact' that the attendant held the drunk's hand to fuel the car, strapped the drunk in, wedged the accelerator, put the car in gear and stepped back? All the time laughing "bwaaahahahahahaha I hope an innocent bystander gets killed from this since I work for an evil corporation daring to make a profit - and I hope my acne clears up before the big dance. It's a good thing this is Exxon written policy or I'd feel uncomfortable about it and need public healthcare to pay for my mental conflict management sessions resulting from this"

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[justinb138 0]

Quote

Did the guy stick a credit card in, pump the gas, then just drive off? No way is the station liable. Was he so drunk he couldn't get the nozzle into the tank, and got one of the attendants to help him? Then they have some responsibility for the ensuing crash.

If the guy was so drunk he couldn't pump his own gas, I would guess that he was probably too drunk to notice that he was almost out of gas, so I'm assuming that wasn't the situation.

[kallend 2,148]

Why stop at drunks. Selling gas to women with pms, selling gas to someone that's just been fired, selling gas to someone who just fought with their spouse, selling gas to someone on antihystamines, in fact just selling gas at all is enabling road accidents and must be punished!

...

The only sure way to survive a canopy collision is not to have one.

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Selling gas to women with pms,

Flame shield up?

[waltappel 1]

Quote

Quote

Selling gas to women with pms,

Flame shield up?

Anyone who has ever dealt with a PMS queen realizes that NOT sell the gas might place the seller at risk of great bodily harm.

Walt

[livendive 8]

Quote

in fact just selling gas at all is enabling road accidents and must be punished!

Exactly.

Blues,
Dave

"I AM A PROFESSIONAL EXTREME ATHLETE!"
(drink Mountain Dew)

[wmw999 2,588]

Well then we won't have to worry about running out oil soon, will we?

Wendy W.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

If the guy was so drunk he couldn't pump his own gas, I would guess that he was probably too drunk to notice that he was almost out of gas, so I'm assuming that wasn't the situation.

And unless the guy was down to virtually no gas, he should have enough left in the tank that had the gas station somehow refused to service him, he'd still have had the range to go crash into the victims. Or to go to the next gas station and more discreetly fuel up. Alternatively, if this guy was borderline (.06-.12 range), how is the gas attendant qualified to assess? Ultimately, it seems hard to conclude that the gas station role in the accident was anything but very minor.

In any event, I read that the state supreme court just ordered that there be an actual trial. No verdict has been rendered yet. So maybe the circumstances of the case are sufficiently bad to warrant the full circus rather than the immediate dismissal it initially got.

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

Quote

in fact just selling gas at all is enabling road accidents and must be punished!

See? Seeeee? It IS the fault of the SUVs.

Now it all makes sense.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[Gravitymaster 0]

Quote

Quote

Quote

in fact just selling gas at all is enabling road accidents and must be punished!

See? Seeeee? It IS the fault of the SUVs.

Now it all makes sense.

Follow the money.

[billvon 3,116]

>"most" of the responsibility . How can someone be 'mostly'
>responsible - it's a binary concept on/off.

Most of the US, and the law, disagrees. You can be partly to blame for something. A man who fails to adequately inspect an airframe, and signs it off, is partly to blame when a pilot overstresses it and it fails along a corrosion seam. Is the pilot to blame? Is the A+P to blame? Yes.

Two people collide in the landing area head-on. They were at the same level. Neither saw the other. Who is responsible?

>2 - So you now have 'fact' that the attendant held the drunk's hand
> to fuel the car, strapped the drunk in, wedged the accelerator, put
> the car in gear and stepped back?

What the heck are you talking about? Are you OK?

[rehmwa 2]

Quote

>Most of the US, and the law, disagrees.

too bad for them

Quote

Two people collide in the landing area head-on. They were at the same level. Neither saw the other. Who is responsible?

Your hypothetical shows they each made the same mistakes, etc. They both are. Independently and without sharing any single responsibility. Just because guy A made mistakes in no way diminishes the responsibility of guy B. and vice versa. In your world, the canopy maker and the DZO are "partly responsible" also - how do you justify that?

Now the consequences, the cost, the results may be different because they both made mistakes, but the responsibility for their actions are independent. You are thinking of 'responsibility' in terms of who pays what - that's liability, not responsibility

I'm thinking of it in terms of choices made and personal ownership of the conduct. Since people are more concerned with who pays the bills instead of doing the right thing, this attitude is prevalent - so I understand your mixup.

I'm not interested in playing semantics today.

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jakee 1,595]

Quote

"most" of the responsibility . How can someone be 'mostly' responsible - it's a binary concept on/off

Hmm, I disagree, however working from your quote

Quote

"Responsibility is a unique concept: It can only reside and inhere in a single individual. You may share it with others, but your portion is not diminished. You may disclaim it, but you cannot divest yourself of it.

Obviously the drunk driver is responsible, no one would argue otherwise. However in the situation you guys are discussing our hypothetical pump jockey is also responsible.

Now I don't know whether the law is a good idea, as was said it kinda falls down against pay at the pump systems, but if a gas station attendant sells fuel to someone he knows is drunk then that makes him partly responsible for whatever accident may happen. But since you don't like partly I guess that means he is responsible. That is something he cannot disclaim nor divest himself of.

Do you want to have an ideagasm?