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.
I thought I lived in the most asinine state in NJ. NM is trying to so hard to be NJ of the Southwest. I think Cali colonists/refugees have destroyed states like NV,NM,CO,AZ,and are targeting UT as we speak.
so now gas station workers are de facto cops
facism on the march
they want a nation of snitches
good lord
We’re now a society that says it’s everyone’s fault except for the individual actually responsible for making a bad decision
auto companies are liable
you can start their cars without blowing into a breathalyzer first
how satanic this country is
They should sue the pump makers and the fueling hose; why stop there?
Or bust them for making people gain weight?
This is ludicrous on its face: Most stations are contact-free where I live. I.E. I drive up to the pump, swipe my payment and loyalty cards, then pump my fuel. No interaction with the staff inside the station whatever.
Now if the driver comes in to pay for the fuel, then possibly there may be enough information to decide if the driver is possibly intoxicated, but often deaf folks sound impaired to hearing people.
This is yet another one of those Stasi-styled “If you see something say something” programs of the government, trying to turn everyone into a surveillance agent of the state.
America’s “justice system” has become a power and money racket
Our country has gone insane.
This is a really stupid ruling. Can a police officer declare someone intoxicated without a test? Declaring someone under the influence is more than an opinion. It has to be verified before public declaration.
The law allow for a police officer to run a number of physical tests like straight line, touching nose, and others that the state in question at the time allows. But that doesn’t make them intoxicated until the have run a correct test.
Tests offered include urine alcohol testing, breath alcohol testing, EtG urine alcohol testing, and EtG hair alcohol testing. But these tests are offered where professional providing the tests can make a scientific measurement and determination of content. A gas station attendant has neither the equipment or training to provide accepted test like these. So they’re working with nothing but dram shop opinion. They shouldn’t be held liable for that in a criminal assessment.
If a person walks in, appearing stone cold sober, is he drunk? The attendant may never have seen him before. If that customer buys a bottle of bourbon with the intent to drink the whole thing, can the attendance stop that with no knowledge he is going to do that?
Dram shop rule is a statute (Dram Shop Act) or case law in 38 states which makes a business which sells alcoholic drinks or a host who serves liquor to a drinker who is obviously intoxicated or close to it, strictly liable to anyone injured by the drunken patron or guest. To the contrary, states have passed legislation specifically banning such strict liability. It is often hard to prove that the liquor bought or served was the specific cause of an accident (such as an automobile crash while driving home), since there is always an intervening cause, namely, the drunk. What is close to intoxication? It’s kind of like being close to stupid.
Some states have passed legislation specifically banning such strict liability. It is often hard to prove that the liquor bought or served was the specific cause of an accident (such as an automobile crash while driving home), since there is always an intervening cause, namely, the drunk and whether he even consumed the intoxicant he purchased there. Additionally, traffic deaths related to intoxication are consistently rising around 9% a year over the last three year and greater before that. Ain’t working this way. But passing the blame, making people the criminal so the government lawmakers aren’t blamed, is the reason not the cure.
wy69
I guess they should put some signs out by the gas pumps:
“No sales to intoxicated persons” or along that line.
WTF? Like people put in a credit card and put their own gas into their car, and why does the gas station even get involved? 99.9% of the time, there is NO CONTACT between the customer and the people working in the gas station. There are even some UNMANNED (or unwomaned) gas stations. Then what?
Why would you assume that?
Until “we” can get breathalyzers (and Covid-19 vaxx tests!) installed on all the fuel pumps, un-regulated pay at the pump card swiping is OVER for New Mexicans. Finally!
Motorists wishing to purchase fuel shall report to the station attendant for a preliminary Field Sobriety Test. Upon completion of a successful Nystagmus, and reciting the alphabet backwards while standing on one foot motorists may then be authorized to pump fuel.
How about courts that let out criminals?? We should be holding judges liable.
Since alcohol manufacturing is licensed by the government, start suing them. States, feds, it doesn’t matter. We will not beat them back by playing a different set of rules than they do. I would also start suing the courts for letting criminals go to commit more crimes. Cloward/Piven them until they can’t take anymore.
Yeast.
Fleischmann’s GONNA PAY!!
“Before I can fill-er-up for you, I have to ask you to blow in this little tube...”
Racist?
While there is no law in New Mexico specifically preventing the sale of gasoline or auto parts to a drunk
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.