[Michael.SF.]

Am I thre only one that read this part?:

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.

[SolidRedState]

Am I thre only one that read this part?:

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

[Allosaurs_r_us]

He was too drunk to be sold beer, yet they helped him put gas in his car? Sounds like a reasonable decision to me.

 

Easy big fella. It states two OFF DUTY employees helped the man turn on the pump. Are the owners of this station now liable for what their employees do after hours? What if it had just been a private citizen, which in realty is what these two were, as they were not working at the time. This should have been thrown out on those grounds alone.