West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co.

Supreme Court of Tennessee · Torts

TortsNegligenceDutyNegligent Entrustmentconvenience storegasoline saleobvious intoxicationdrunk driver

Facts

An obviously intoxicated customer, Brian Tarver, entered the defendant's store, was refused beer, caused a disturbance, and paid three dollars for gasoline. Two employees then assisted him at the pump by activating it when he could not do so himself, and they observed him drive away without headlights and in the wrong lane of traffic. Tarver later drove 2.8 miles and struck the plaintiffs head-on, causing serious injuries. The plaintiffs' expert stated that without the gasoline obtained at the store, Tarver's vehicle would have run out of fuel about one mile before the accident scene.

Issue

Whether convenience store employees owe a duty of reasonable care to persons on the roadways when they sell gasoline to an obviously intoxicated person they know or reasonably should know is the driver, and/or assist that person in pumping the gasoline. The case also asks whether negligent entrustment can apply when the chattel is sold rather than merely loaned or bailed.

Rule

A convenience store employee owes a duty of reasonable care to persons on the roadways not to sell gasoline to, or assist in providing gasoline to, a person whom the employee knows or reasonably ought to know is intoxicated and is the driver of the motor vehicle. Duty is determined by balancing whether the foreseeable probability and gravity of harm outweigh the burden of safer alternative conduct. Negligent entrustment applies to one who supplies a chattel, including a seller, to a person the supplier knows or has reason to know is likely to use it in a manner involving unreasonable risk of physical harm.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

At a late-night fuel mart in Dayton, Ohio, clerk Nina Cole sees Owen Briggs stumble into the store, slur his words, and smell strongly of whiskey. Owen tosses cash on the counter for gasoline, then walks directly to a sedan parked at pump 4, gets into the driver’s seat, and honks because he cannot start the pump; Nina remotely activates it. Ten minutes later, Owen causes a collision on a nearby road.

If injured motorists sue the store for negligence, which is the strongest argument that the store owed them a duty of reasonable care?

Explanation. The majority held that a convenience store employee owes a duty of reasonable care to persons on the roadways not to sell or assist in providing gasoline to a person the employee knows or reasonably ought to know is intoxicated and is the driver. The claim is based on the employee’s affirmative acts creating a foreseeable and unreasonable risk, not on a special relationship. The court also stressed there is no duty to physically restrain the intoxicated person.