Replies

I did read the whole article. The employees were not on duty, therefore the business is not responsible and the case should have been thrown out. If there is culpability, it would be the two "off duty" employees acting as private citizens period, not the business, which is what the court was asked to decide. You cannot hold the business responsible for what their employees do when they are not on the clock. To do so throws common sense out the window and would have so far reaching repercussions it would make justice in this country a joke.

As far as the employee behind the counter, he/she stated the guy slapped the money on the counter and left. The employee stated this thug pushed his way to the front of the line. He already paid for the gas. Should the employee actually leave his.her post in order to argue the fact with a drunk? What grounds would he/she have to not sell him the gas? The fact he was drunk? Don't be ridiculous. It is not against the law to sell gas to a drunk person nor should it be. Should citizens be held responsible for what they perceive as possible illegal acts? It is insane to even suggest you can hold the business responsible if you "read" the story.

The judges should have thrown this out and never heard it in the first place. The only thing they accomplished is to open the door for another couple thousand "victims" to figure out how to screw innocent people.

What grounds would he/she have to not sell him the gas? The fact he was drunk? Don't be ridiculous.

The very least she should have done was called the cops and report him. Any reasonable person would have done that given the behavior described in the article.

Only an idiot would agree to sell gas to man too drunk to walk, then only two more idiots would agree to pump gas into the car of a man too drunk to figure out how to work a gas pump.

As I said previously, the two are probably not "legally liable" as for the attendant, I would want to hear both sides.

Apparently, you do not need to.