Posted on 08/22/2005 12:29:51 PM PDT by SmithL
...What about "Pay at the pump"?...
Gas stations will have to install breathalizer devices on every pump. Blow, Pump, and Pay. Of course they can just add the cost to the gasoline, or, lobby Congress to foot the bill, probably the latter since it's such a "feel good" measure the Nanny government would jump all over it.
I hate this liability crap, because those who are really not liable always end up footing the bill for those who really are liable.
Bottom line, if you've got something to sue for, you are liable. It's SOP of the court system, and it is killing this country.
Not mine. First time it coughs it dies and that's it right there. My old VW Bug, though, if it started missing you could pick up the front end and jiggle it around and enough gas would get into the fuel line to get to the next gas station. I admit it took two to pick up the front of the vehicle.
"...Blow, Pump, and Pay. Of course they can just add the cost to the gasoline..."
If I could tell you the restraint I'm using right now... : )
Well. When I say 'fumes' I just mean the gas gauge reads empty and the tank has a hollow sound when I rap on it to see If I can make it to the next station.
I've done it a few times and the nearest gas station is about 4 miles away.
Kind of but not really. The car most likely had gas already in the tank and the drunk guy was just adding to it.
This also raises the problem of turning gas station attendants into DUI checkpoint officers. What if a white clerk refuses to sell gasoline to a black or mexican patron and then can't prove that the guy was actually drunk? The station will probably be charged with violating the guy's civil rights and be sued by those who couldn't obtain fuel as well.
Also, what if a person has a speech impediment or just an odd way of carrying himself and the clerk deems him intoxicated and won't sell him gas? If the guy later gets into an accident going to another station or something bad happens because he can't get fuel, the lawyers will go after the station again.
This type of ruling puts ordinary people just trying to make a living selling stuff into a very difficult situation. With MADD emotionally blackmailing state legislators to lower the intoxication threshold to .08 and even .04, a normal person just working at a convenience store won't be able to determine who to sell fuel to.
Perhaps part of tort reform should be common sense PROXIMATE CAUSE REFORM!
This is absurd because the proximate cause was not the gasoline, it was the DRUNK! Public policy puts drunk drivers on strict liability.
Juries are just plain STUPID.
We need a Bill of Responsibilities to accompany the Bill of Rights.
According to court records,: 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.
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
He was too drunk to be sold beer, yet they helped him put gas in his car? Sounds like a reasonable decision to me.
And lawyers wonder why they are sooooo despised...
Absolutely right.
What if he then ran out of gas and was injured or killed on the highway, or what if he left his car at the station and subsequently was hurt?
With these kinds of idiotic rulings, you're screwed no matter what you do.
oooooh! good one, i like that.
altho, that would only work if the lawyer got someone off for drunk driving.
As I dive into this thread, I hope and pray that no FReepers support this decsion. I fear that I will be greatly dissappointed.
No, I don't think so.
But, where does it stop?
Are we supposed to ALL become drunk driving vigilantes?
What about if someone "sees" a drunk driver driving erratically and fails to report him?
I feel for these people who were injured, but who has the responsibility?
This is just about money. IMHO
3 bucks doesn't buy much over a gallon of gas. If the truck's tank is not damaged then check quanity; if over a gallon, the gas wasn't used.
>>>Okay, not as bad as the title suggests. The court here was simply ruling whether negligence could be possible. >>>
Are you kidding, law suits will begin tomorrow.
More out of control liability on behalf of a legal class whose rapacity is apparently limitless.
What an imbecile
What an Ultra-Maroon,
What a nin "cow" poop
Bugs Bunny
that's a seriously deceptive headline ... the court ruled that the case could be tried, not that the station was found liable.
cancel my post #55. I missed the line about the UOT checking fuel level.
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.