|
Analysis: Over eight years ago the Tennessee Supreme
Court handed down the decision of West v. East
Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3rd 545 (Tenn. 2005). This case set new precedent at that time and
it is a good case to review because of the impact it can have on many negligence
situations. It primarily discussed and
considered the foreseeability element in a negligence case.
In West, an individual who
had been drinking alcohol on the night in question purchased gas from a
convenience store gas station. There
were some disputed facts, however, it was plaintiff's contention that this
individual was clearly intoxicated and the convenience store employees knew he
was intoxicated when they sold him gas.
Additionally, an off-duty employee of the store actually assisted the
intoxicated individual by pushing the correct buttons on the gas pump in order
to activate the pump. There was a
dispute about whether all of these individuals knew the allegedly intoxicated
individual was in fact intoxicated and whether or not he was the actual driver
of the vehicle. After the vehicle left
the gas station, it struck another vehicle, causing severe injuries to the
plaintiffs.
The trial court dismissed the cause of
action against the gas station. The
trial court basically found that under Tennessee law, the plaintiffs could not
hold the convenience store liable under these circumstances. On appeal, the Tennessee Supreme Court
reversed this decision and found that:
we conclude that a
convenience store employee owes a duty of reasonable care to persons on the
roadways, including the plaintiffs, not to sell gasoline to a person whom the
employee knows (or reasonably ought to know) to be intoxicated and to be the
driver of the motor vehicle. Similarly, a convenience store employee also owes
a duty of reasonable care not to assist in providing gasoline (in this case
pumping the gasoline) to a person whom the employee knows (or reasonably ought
to know) to be intoxicated and to be the driver of the motor vehicle. We stress
that because [f]oreseeability is the test of negligence the convenience store
employee must know that the individual is intoxicated and that the individual
is the driver of the vehicle before a duty arises. It is a question of fact for
a jury as to what the employee knew with respect to the individual's
intoxication and status as driver.
Id. at 552. As a result, if a convenience store employee
provides gas to an intoxicated individual who is also a driver of a vehicle,
then if an accident occurs that is reasonably tied to the sale of the gasoline,
the gas station can be found responsible for the accident under Tennessee law. Further, even if an employee was not aware
that the purchaser of gasoline was intoxicated at the time the gasoline was
sold, if the employee later assists the intoxicated individual in pumping
gasoline, then the gas station is potentially responsible for that act.
The Tennessee Supreme Court, importantly,
clarified that they “do not hold that convenience store employees have a duty
to physically restrain or otherwise prevent intoxicated persons from
driving." Id. at 552. As a result, if an intoxicated individual
purchases gas at the pump by
credit card and no employee is aware, or should be aware of their intoxicated
state until after the gas is put into the vehicle, the employees are not
required to physically restrain the individual from leaving the premises if
they later learn the individual was intoxicated.
At the time this case came out, I was
surprised by this Tennessee Supreme Court decision. It imposed a duty on gas stations/convenience
stores that had not been previously explicitly found in Tennessee. This case expanded the scope of potential
liability for convenience stores and gas stations when dealing with an
intoxicated individual. This ruling will
also apply if someone is obviously under the influence of drugs at the time of
the sale of the gas.
Follow me on Twitter at @jasonalee for updates from the Tennessee Defense Litigation
blog.
|