 |
 |
 |
|
|
"
|
 |
||
 |
 |
 |
!
Posted on 08/22/2005 12:29:51 PM PDT by SmithL
Selling gas to a drunk could make store owners legally responsible for injuries suffered if the intoxicated motorist causes a crash, the state Supreme Court has ruled.
The groundbreaking ruling comes in a Knoxville lawsuit that sought to extend the state's negligence laws, long applied to those who hawk alcohol to drunks, to those who provide them gas.
In the case, Gary L. West and Michell B. Richardson suffered severe injuries in July 2000 when their vehicle was struck head-on by drunk driver Brian Lee Tarver, 49, in a crash on Rutledge Pike.
Tarver later pleaded guilty to charges including vehicular assault and second-offense driving under the influence.
Attorneys Gregory F. Coleman and Michael A. Myers later filed a lawsuit in Knox County Circuit Court, alleging that Tarver's car never would have made it to its tragic collision with West and Richardson but for the $3 worth of gas he bought at an Exxon station on Rutledge Pike just before the crash.
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.
The question for the state's high court was whether Pioneer could be held liable for the crash. Could or should its employees have foreseen the risk of a crash and, if so, was there something they could have done to try to prevent it?
While the high court made clear that the store's employees were not required to take affirmative action to stop Tarver from driving, they still could have refused to sell him gas, the court ruled.
"A safer alternative was readily available and easily feasible - simply refusing to sell gasoline to an obviously intoxicated driver," the court ruled in an opinion delivered by Justice William M. Barker.
According to court records, the cashier was facing a long line of customers when Tarver "pushed his way to the front of the line and asked the clerk if she would 'go get (him) some beer.' "
He reeked of alcohol and staggered when he walked, court records stated. Believing Tarver was drunk, the cashier declined to sell him beer, according to court records.
"Tarver began cursing loudly, talking to (the cashier) in a threatening manner," Barker wrote in the opinion.
"Tarver then managed to pull three crumpled one dollar bills out of his pocket and laid them on the counter," Barker wrote. "He told (the clerk), 'We need gas' and then turned to leave."
Once at the gas pumps, Tarver was too drunk to figure out how to turn the device on, the opinion stated. Two off-duty employees then helped him turn on the pump, according to the opinion. They later watched as Tarver got behind the wheel and drove into the oncoming lane of traffic on Rutledge Pike, the opinion stated.
A University of Tennessee professor later determined that Tarver's vehicle would have run out of gas before encountering West and Richardson if he had not been able to buy more fuel.
Knox County Circuit Court Judge Harold Wimberly had dismissed the lawsuit by West and Richardson, ruling that state law did not allow a claim of negligence against Pioneer for injuries Tarver caused.
The case heads back to his court for trial, where a jury must decide if blame should be placed on Pioneer and its employees. 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."
It's still ok to sell it to a pyro, though...right?
IT'S A MADHOUSE!!!!
This ruling makes no sense.
There goes the "pay-at-the-pump" option if the idiot court holds the station owner responsible; won't do much for pump first-pay later, either.
This is the epitome of STUPID!
What the HELL ever happened to personal responsibility?
Why not shoot the idiot who sold him the car? Or the poltroon who gave birth to him? {/sarcasm}
WHat if he had already pumped the gas and went inside? Would they send him out with a can and a tube to syphon it out?
what is the going rate for a gas station attendant with a medical degree?
The ruling allows the jury to decide if I read the article correctly.
| |
|
|
|
|
"
|
|
||
|
|
|
!
I have a much better idea!
All lawyers are to be held 100% responsible for any murder, robbery, rape, etc committed by a felon who was released through their sleazy lies.
Lawyers will received the maximum penalty for whatever crime is commited by their actions.
------
------
If the devil is the living flesh of evil, then here is who I think he is. Far from appearing as a hideous demon, he is the average-looking person who walks into a room and shakes your hand with a smile. By the time he leaves, the standards of decency of everyone within that room have been lowered ever so slightly. --- A lawyer come to mind.
If I'm walking down the street and a drunk pulls over and asks me for directions, am I liable if I tell the route, and then an accident occurs along that route?
Supreme court has gone stark raving mad, my God, it's never the drunk's fault, heaven forbid he/she be responsible for his/her actions, blame everyone else, I can't stand it anymore, there has got to be another planet somewhere where sanity prevails.
There is no such thing. The lawyers took that away long ago. It's now everybody's fault. They are a victim of society.
Put a couple of high payout lawsuits behiind this, and all the 'pay at the pump' units will have to be replaced. Self-service will exist no more.
Gas prices aren't exactly going to go down under that scenario.
Okay, not as bad as the title suggests. The court here was simply ruling whether negligence could be possible.
Reading the facts of the case, it seems like it's within the realm of possibility that what happened here was negligence. Especially the part about off-duty station employees helping this guy pump his gas.
Selling this guy gas is in the same ballpark as handing a visibly intoxicated man a firearm.
Oh, don't worry, I'm sure it's just a matter of time!
| |
|
|
|
|
|
||
|
|
|
!
For the love of God, everyone ought to be able to sue someone.
They also oughta be able to sue the car manufacturer, the people who built the car, the company who manufactures the liquor they drank, the bartender/club owner/liquor store clerk/liquor store owner, and anyone else the victims family can squeeze money out of.
BTW, in this day and age of pay at the pump, how is a gas station supposed to stop the sale of gas to someone they never even see?
*sigh*
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.