Replies

The case heads back to his court for trial, where a jury must decide if blame should be placed on Pioneer and its employees. The state Supreme Court ruling only allows the case to proceed. The justices did not rule on whether Pioneer was negligent.

Okay, not as bad as the title suggests. The court here was simply ruling whether negligence could be possible.

Reading the facts of the case, it seems like it's within the realm of possibility that what happened here was negligence. Especially the part about off-duty station employees helping this guy pump his gas.

Selling this guy gas is in the same ballpark as handing a visibly intoxicated man a firearm.

Selling this guy gas is in the same ballpark as handing a visibly intoxicated man a firearm.

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.