West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co.

Tennessee Supreme Court
172 S.W.3d 545, 2005 Tenn. LEXIS 652 (2005)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

A vendor of a chattel, such as gasoline, owes a duty of reasonable care to third parties on the roadways not to supply that chattel to a person the vendor knows or should know is intoxicated and is likely to use it in a manner that creates an unreasonable risk of harm. This duty may give rise to liability under theories of both general negligence and negligent entrustment, even if the transaction is a sale.

Facts:

Brian Tarver, who was visibly intoxicated, smelling of beer, and staggering, entered an Exxon convenience store operated by East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Company.
The store clerk, Dorothy Thomas, recognized Tarver's intoxication and refused to sell him beer.
Tarver then placed three dollars on the counter for gasoline and staggered out to his vehicle at the pumps.
Unable to operate the pump, Tarver caused an alarm to sound, prompting two off-duty employees, Candice Drinnon and Roy Armani, to go outside.
The employees, noting Tarver's condition, assisted him by pressing the correct button to start the pump, which the clerk inside then activated.
After pumping the gasoline, Tarver drove off the lot without headlights and into the wrong lane of traffic.
Approximately 2.8 miles away, Tarver's vehicle collided head-on with a vehicle driven by Gary West and occupied by Michell Richardson, causing them serious injuries.
An expert determined that without the gasoline purchased at the defendant's store, Tarver's vehicle would have run out of fuel one mile before reaching the accident scene.

Procedural Posture:

Gary West and Michell Richardson (plaintiffs) filed a lawsuit against East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Company (defendant) in a Tennessee trial court, asserting claims of negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment.
The defendant moved for summary judgment on all claims.
The trial court granted the defendant's motion for summary judgment, dismissing all of the plaintiffs' claims.
The plaintiffs appealed the dismissal to the Tennessee Court of Appeals, an intermediate appellate court.
The Court of Appeals affirmed the trial court's dismissal of the negligence per se and negligent entrustment claims, but it reversed the dismissal of the general negligence claim, holding that the defendant did owe the plaintiffs a duty of care.
The Supreme Court of Tennessee granted review of the case.

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Does a vendor of gasoline owe a duty of reasonable care to other motorists to avoid selling gasoline to a person the vendor knows or reasonably should know is intoxicated and will be driving a motor vehicle?

Opinions:

Majority - William M. Barker, J.

Yes, a vendor of gasoline owes a duty of reasonable care to other motorists to avoid selling gasoline to a person the vendor knows or should know is intoxicated and will be driving. The court determined this duty exists by applying a balancing test that weighs the foreseeability and gravity of the harm against the burden of alternative conduct. The court found that the harm from drunk driving is severe and highly foreseeable, while the burden of refusing to sell gasoline to an obviously intoxicated driver is minimal. The defendant's duty arises not from a special relationship to control a third party, but from its own affirmative acts of selling and assisting in providing gasoline, which created an unreasonable risk of harm. The court also held that the tort of negligent entrustment applies to sellers of chattels, not just bailors, adopting the view of the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 390 and overturning prior precedent that required the entrustor to retain an ownership interest or right of control.

Analysis:

This decision significantly expands tort liability for commercial vendors in Tennessee by establishing a new duty of care for sellers of gasoline and other potentially enabling products. By moving beyond traditional dram shop liability (which applies to alcohol sales), the court created a precedent that could hold vendors responsible for providing any product that enables a foreseeably dangerous act. Furthermore, the ruling broadens the scope of negligent entrustment by explicitly applying it to sellers, aligning Tennessee with the Restatement and the majority of jurisdictions. This change overrules restrictive prior case law and makes it possible to hold sellers liable for negligently placing a dangerous chattel in the hands of an incompetent person, regardless of whether the transaction was a loan or a sale.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. (2005)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature