Ruling says gas stations liable

Knoxville News Sentinel ^ | 8/22/5 | JAMIE SATTERFIELD

[freepatriot32]

Libertarian ping.To be added or removed from my ping list freepmail me or post a message here

[Allosaurs_r_us]

WTF? Are we to assume that all drunks drift into the gas stations on fumes, and if they're denied gasoline they have to stay put? Refusing to sell a drunk gas will accomplish nothing.

And a good chance it could be dangerous if the moron is packin a gat! Anyone else here ever see a drunk get all pissed off when he doesn't get his way. At least I personally am big enough to defend myself, but I have seen many "kids" working in these places that would be just terrified to deny a biligerent drunk what he wants.

 

This decision is just assinine! The judges in this case need to be sued for wasting air by the enviro whackos.

 

[Turbopilot]

What a terribly misleading article. First, the headline is an outright lie. There was no finding that the gas station was liable; actually, there was no finding of fact at all. Without more accurate information, it would appear that the ruling just denied a defense motion to dismiss. This merely allows a jury to find whether the gas station could have been negligent.

Second, you have to read the article deeply and carefully to realize it, but the suit is not being brought by the drunk driver. It's been brought by the victims who were injured by the drunk driver, and who may have had very high medical and other costs as a result. It's probably a good guess that an imprisoned multiple-DUI offender who had to buy gas $3 at a time is pretty much judgement-proof.

Based on the article as (poorly) written, the gas station may or may not be liable. I can see a jury finding that they were negligent, but I could also see the jury finding otherwise. But the point is that it is possible for a jury to find negligence based on the given facts, which is why the court is permitting the case to go to a jury.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

He was too drunk to be sold beer, yet they helped him put gas in his car? Sounds like a reasonable decision to me.

 

Easy big fella. It states two OFF DUTY employees helped the man turn on the pump. Are the owners of this station now liable for what their employees do after hours? What if it had just been a private citizen, which in realty is what these two were, as they were not working at the time. This should have been thrown out on those grounds alone.

[jude24]

More importantly, the attorneys alleged, employees at the Exxon, owned by East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co., knew Tarver was drunk - so drunk that a cashier refused to sell him beer.

This is the key. The cashier knew he was drunk enough that they refused to sell him alcohol, yet they were more than willing to sell him gas.

This makes sense. They clearly knew he was drunk, and helped him drive in an intoxicated condition. They definately were negligent.

[jude24]

I should read the whole thread before I comment...

[Michael.SF.]

The state Supreme Court ruling only allows the case to proceed. The justices did not rule on whether Pioneer was negligent."We're pleased," Coleman said. "Now we can go forward with the trial itself."

Easy yourself, big guy. You should read the entire article.

The courts have simply allowed the trial to continue, so they will let the attorney make his case and the defense make theirs.

My take is this:

The cashier should not have turned on the pump, if he was that obviously drunk. So yes, the station may have some liability.

The two guys who helped him are complete idiots, but probably not either legally guilty or legally responsible.

Consider this: If the cashier had sold him alcohol, in his condition, could she be held responsible for that?

[NoCurrentFreeperByThatName]

Could you please add me to your ping list?

[Allosaurs_r_us]

I did read the whole article. The employees were not on duty, therefore the business is not responsible and the case should have been thrown out. If there is culpability, it would be the two "off duty" employees acting as private citizens period, not the business, which is what the court was asked to decide. You cannot hold the business responsible for what their employees do when they are not on the clock. To do so throws common sense out the window and would have so far reaching repercussions it would make justice in this country a joke.

 

As far as the employee behind the counter, he/she stated the guy slapped the money on the counter and left. The employee stated this thug pushed his way to the front of the line. He already paid for the gas. Should the employee actually leave his.her post in order to argue the fact with a drunk? What grounds would he/she have to not sell him the gas? The fact he was drunk? Don't be ridiculous. It is not against the law to sell gas to a drunk person nor should it be. Should citizens be held responsible for what they perceive as possible illegal acts? It is insane to even suggest you can hold the business responsible if you "read" the story.

 

The judges should have thrown this out and never heard it in the first place. The only thing they accomplished is to open the door for another couple thousand "victims" to figure out how to screw innocent people.

[Michael.SF.]

What grounds would he/she have to not sell him the gas? The fact he was drunk? Don't be ridiculous.

The very least she should have done was called the cops and report him. Any reasonable person would have done that given the behavior described in the article.

Only an idiot would agree to sell gas to man too drunk to walk, then only two more idiots would agree to pump gas into the car of a man too drunk to figure out how to work a gas pump.

As I said previously, the two are probably not "legally liable" as for the attendant, I would want to hear both sides.

Apparently, you do not need to.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Apparently, you do not need to.

You just don't get it do you. It is not illegal to sell gas to anyone! Should she have called the cops? Well I think most civilly minded individuals would have unless of course this guy scared the hell out of her. I'm not saying he did, but now days convenience store clerk is one of the most dangerous occupations in America. Ever watch the amazing video shows? This employee makes tops about $8 an hour. I'm certain this situation was not on the application when she signed up. DUI is enforced by the cops and the courts. Not by convenience store clerks. She already did what she was required by law to do. That was to deny him any more alcohol. If you want her to do more, then perhaps we need to swear them in as officers of the court.

What I don't need is the government deciding when I should be a good citizen. Since when is it up to you, a jury, or the court, to decide how involved an employee has to be in enforcing the law. It is not their job! If this is your position, who was responsible before he pulled into the gas station. Maybe his neighbor that saw him pull out of the driveway? What about other drivers on the road that night? How about the kid riding his bike, that saw him weaving back and forth driving down the street. Should he be held responsible because he didn't immediately run to a phone to call law enforcement?

It is not up to the you or the court to enforce when or how an innocent bystander reacts to a given situation.

I think the Nazi's made it a crime for citizens not to turn in the Jews in WWII. Is that where you're heading? No thanks!

[verity]

"Kill all the lawyers."

[Michael.SF.]

You sir, are being a complete ass.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

You sir, are being a complete ass.

 

Huh? I don't agree, that you, a jury, or a court, can enforce your idea of citizen involvement for liability of a criminal, and I'm the ass? What have you been smokin'?

 

You can't argue a point enough to change someone elses mind and have been shot down so you resort to name calling. How old are you 12? If it gets to much for you, I suggest you head over to the DUmpster. There are a whole DUmp truck full of 12 year old mentality playmates you would get along with very well. They do the same thing. When they get proven to be on the loosing side of an argument, they come up with a slew of four letter zingers they think will baffle you with BS. See ya in the funny papers!

 

 

 

 

[Michael.SF.]

Huh? I don't agree, that you, a jury, or a court, can enforce your idea of citizen involvement for liability of a criminal, and I'm the ass?

Yes, you are being the ass, because you have utterly failed to comprehend anything that I have said. You have selectively read portions of my statements and then made derisive slaps at me (which I ignored).

All I have said are the following:

The case deserves to go forward so that evidence can be made and the case heard. That is all that was decided here.

Second: Anybody too drunk to walk, should not be allowed and or helped to fill their car up with gas to drive off and kill somebody.

Only an utter fool would do that and only a bigger fool would defend them.

You sir, seem to fall into the later category. Now why dont you just STFU, you are boring me.

[Allosaurs_r_us]

Pot meet kettle

Bwahahahahahahahaha!