Posted on 08/02/2021 11:27:47 AM PDT by rickmichaels
The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Monday that service stations in the state can be liable for selling fuel to intoxicated drivers, making it only the second state in the Union where such liability extends to station operators. Tennessee was the first.
The ruling came down after New Mexico's highest court agreed to hear a request from a federal appeals court to resolve a question of state law concerning the potential liability of a retailer that sold gasoline to an intoxicated driver in 2011. After refueling and returning to the highway, that driver crossed the center line and crashed into an oncoming vehicle, killing its occupant.
The intoxicated driver had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.176 – more than double the legal limit (0.08) in New Mexico – and was arrested for driving while under the influence, vehicular homicide, and driving left of center, according to the case synopsis supplied in the court's ruling, which noted that only one other state — Tennessee — applies the law in such a way to create a “duty of care” for businesses to refrain from supplying fuel to drunken drivers because of the risk of driving while intoxicated.
While there is no law in New Mexico specifically preventing the sale of gasoline or auto parts to a drunk (or otherwise incapacitated) customer, the ruling sets a precedent under the the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment, which outlines the responsibilities of owners of potentially dangerous goods to supply them only to someone competent to safely use them.
While New Mexico has no law that would prohibit the sale of gasoline to intoxicated drivers, the court's majority wrote that a duty not to sell gasoline to someone who is drunk is consistent with liability for giving that person alcohol or a vehicle, and the latter has been recognized in the past by state courts.
In her dissenting opinion, now-retired Justice Barbara Vigil wrote that selling or serving alcohol is regulated and that laws don't warrant extending liability for drunken driving to retail sales of nonalcoholic goods. She noted that “this sea change in the law could have far-reaching consequences for retail businesses,” hence the concern for mechanics, service departments and retail outlets that sell DIY parts.
Vigil also noted that there is little guidance as to the degree to which retailers are responsible for investigating the intoxication of customers or whether that liability will extend to self-service situations that would be far more difficult for attendants to monitor.
All new cars will have to be equipped with a breathalyzer, h/t @creek_ghost
pic.twitter.com/0thSmSE0qF
— Oilfield Rando (@Oilfield_Rando) August 2, 2021
“Somebody must have the contract to install breathalyzers on the gas pumps.”
Not gonna work.. What if the passenger buys the gas?
The gas stations will need to have no self serve. And also have attendants essentially run a DUI check point. Of course this would mean that ALL attendants will need to have completed a gov approved certification trainings.
The gas station will need a BOAT load of insurance. both for the DUI people that slip through. AND for the suits brought against them for NOT selling gas (cuz ‘racism or cuz covid).
the end game (i’m sure) is ONLY gov run stations.
How does a gas station check everyone for being drunk prior to dispensing gas?
In New Mexico and Tennessee, that will be the cheapest way to validate, wouldn’t it?
>>While there is no law in New Mexico specifically preventing the sale of gasoline or auto parts to a drunk (or otherwise incapacitated) customer, the ruling sets a precedent under the the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment, which outlines the responsibilities of owners of potentially dangerous goods to supply them only to someone competent to safely use them.
not JUST the sale of gasoline, but would also affect 24 hour O’Reily and Autozone and Wal-Mart automotive sales. Jumper cables, fix-a-flat, car battery, motor oil, etc.
What if the drunk driver is driving an EV, should the power company be held liable?
Is NM a legal stoner state? If so, do gas stations now have to also draw blood for THC levels?
Or a store that sells a fork too Roseanne Barr.
I suspect, though, that the next target for litigation will be guns and ammo.
The left has been pushing that line for at least 30 years, if not longer.
“While there is no law in New Mexico specifically preventing the sale of gasoline or auto parts to a drunk”
So the legislators are all liable since they have allowed it. Maybe this ruling is not as bad as first thought...
Over 20 years ago, I worked in Eastern New Mexico.
Loved it there.
But we were told in orientation that
1. Half the drivers after 6 PM are drunk
2. Most carry no insurance.
Saw evidence of both.
Not sure if it is still the case, but I can understand the finding. Since the legal precedent is subjects are wards of the state, the corporations should be held liable.
I think pot/meth/Xanax drugs, etc are all covered under DUI laws now.
But not being high on life!
I probably appeared drunk walking into the IHOP this morning 🌅 after the graveyard shift. I was tired and my balance wasn’t too good.
Anyway, I don’t know how this law would be enforceable. Putting too much responsibility on a low-paid attendant.
https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a29555598/government-anti-drunk-driving-plan-revealed/
October 2019
Drunk Driving Could Start to End Forever as Soon as 2024, Government Says
New bipartisan Senate bill calls for onboard test equipment in every new car to prevent it from starting if driver’s BAC is 0.08 or higher.
Newly introduced federal legislation in the Senate would require all new passenger vehicles to have passive alcohol-detection systems by 2024.
These systems would prevent a car from being started if the driver’s blood-alcohol content (BAC) is over the legal limit of 0.08. But would the equipment work every time?
Senators Tom Udall (D–New Mexico) and Rick Scott (R–Florida) have introduced legislation that would mandate that all new passenger vehicles come with passive and unobtrusive alcohol detection systems by the year 2024. Their Reduce Impaired Driving for Everyone (RIDE) Act of 2019 is intended to “promote the research and development of advanced alcohol detection software and will require the implementation of such technology in new motor vehicles.” Rep. Debbie Dingell (D–Michigan) has introduced similar legislation in the House of Representatives. The legislators’ goal: to have technology in every car that will prevent the car from being started if the driver’s BAC is over the legal limit of 0.08.
And there are other legislators and lobbyists who push for lowering BAC to 0.05% or 0.03%. In Sweden it is 0.01%.
There’s that and say the person already has fuel, 1/4 tank. Denied service. Drives away. Who’s liable then?
Seems to me that this is all setting th table to do two things:
1. Go after oil companies even more
2. Reduce the product and distributor liability protections afforded business owners. Gas station owner is liable. Now, so is Academy Sports, acábelas, BassPro, Spaortsmans Warehouse for selling someone a gun
Gas station liable
Liquor store liable
Bar liable
Party host liable
Liquor distributor/producer liable
Malt, barley, etc, producer liable
Plant / harvesting equipment mfg liable
Seed/fertilizer mfg liable
Driver NOT liable
So we can blame Jan 6 on the Capital Police...
Hey, kid - here’s $20 if you’ll breathe into this tube until my car starts.
As there is nothing on the breath to detect, people from some lifestyles may claim that they are being profiled for their body language and emotive ways of talking.
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.