New Mexico Supreme Court rules gas stations can be liable for DUIs

[Text Drivers are Killers]

So why aren't the car makers liable for selling cars that do 3 times the max legal speed??? And for installing internet access into cars to distract drivers.??

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/07/20/...ine-sales-dui/

july 20 2021 The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Monday that service stations in the state can be liable for selling fuel to intoxicated drivers, making it only the second state in the Union where such liability extends to station operators. Tennessee was the first.

The ruling came down after New Mexico's highest court agreed to hear a request from a federal appeals court to resolve a question of state law concerning the potential liability of a retailer that sold gasoline to an intoxicated driver in 2011. After refueling and returning to the highway, that driver crossed the center line and crashed into an oncoming vehicle, killing its occupant.

The intoxicated driver had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.176 – more than double the legal limit (0.08) in New Mexico – and was arrested for driving while under the influence, vehicular homicide, and driving left of center, according to the case synopsis supplied in the court's ruling, which noted that only one other state — Tennessee — applies the law in such a way to create a “duty of care” for businesses to refrain from supplying fuel to drunken drivers because of the risk of driving while intoxicated.

While there is no law in New Mexico specifically preventing the sale of gasoline or auto parts to a drunk (or otherwise incapacitated) customer, the ruling sets a precedent under the the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment, which outlines the responsibilities of owners of potentially dangerous goods to supply them only to someone competent to safely use them.

While New Mexico has no law that would prohibit the sale of gasoline to intoxicated drivers, the court's majority wrote that a duty not to sell gasoline to someone who is drunk is consistent with liability for giving that person alcohol or a vehicle, and the latter has been recognized in the past by state courts.

[Dirt McGirt]

So why aren't the car makers liable for selling cars that do 3 times the max legal speed??? And for installing internet access into cars to distract drivers.??

The thinking man’s drunk knows to ride a horse when drunk in Tennessee. That won’t get you a DUI.

[Hawkeye10]

Our elites increasingly do not understand the real world.

This is an example of that.

[T. A. Gardner]

The thinking man’s drunk knows to ride a horse when drunk in Tennessee. That won’t get you a DUI.

It will in in Arizona...

[BidenPresident]

So why aren't the car makers liable for selling cars that do 3 times the max legal speed??? And for installing internet access into cars to distract drivers.??

yes, sadly, that is a real thing

[Text Drivers are Killers]

yes, sadly, that is a real thing

For over 100 years the car makers have used the media to brainwash the idiot american into speeding and red light running and DWI and now DWT. Car crashes mean car sales.

[NiftyNiblick]

How does TDAK manage to make himself so annoying even when he's on "ignore?"

[Nomad]

So what happens when a drunk driver uses a self service pump at a combination convenience store and gas station, and has no human interaction while making a gas purchase?

Will they have to install alcohol breathalyzers on all their gas pumps and require every customer to blow into it? Will they have to have a dispenser for sanitary, unused mouth pieces?

Which would raise the question of what if a drunk driver has a passenger who has not had any alcohol and gets that person to blow into the machine?

Will this mean the end of self serve gasoline pumps in NM?

[Grumpy]

https://www.autoblog.com/2021/07/20/...ine-sales-dui/

july 20 2021 The New Mexico Supreme Court ruled Monday that service stations in the state can be liable for selling fuel to intoxicated drivers, making it only the second state in the Union where such liability extends to station operators. Tennessee was the first.

The ruling came down after New Mexico's highest court agreed to hear a request from a federal appeals court to resolve a question of state law concerning the potential liability of a retailer that sold gasoline to an intoxicated driver in 2011. After refueling and returning to the highway, that driver crossed the center line and crashed into an oncoming vehicle, killing its occupant.

The intoxicated driver had a blood alcohol concentration of 0.176 – more than double the legal limit (0.08) in New Mexico – and was arrested for driving while under the influence, vehicular homicide, and driving left of center, according to the case synopsis supplied in the court's ruling, which noted that only one other state — Tennessee — applies the law in such a way to create a “duty of care” for businesses to refrain from supplying fuel to drunken drivers because of the risk of driving while intoxicated.

While there is no law in New Mexico specifically preventing the sale of gasoline or auto parts to a drunk (or otherwise incapacitated) customer, the ruling sets a precedent under the the legal doctrine of negligent entrustment, which outlines the responsibilities of owners of potentially dangerous goods to supply them only to someone competent to safely use them.

While New Mexico has no law that would prohibit the sale of gasoline to intoxicated drivers, the court's majority wrote that a duty not to sell gasoline to someone who is drunk is consistent with liability for giving that person alcohol or a vehicle, and the latter has been recognized in the past by state courts.

THIS IS THE MOST RECENT EXAMPLE OF 'LEGISLATING FROM THE BENCH'

Are the refineries next ???

[reagansghost]

[reagansghost]

only reason they haven't busted Cuck is he can't get it up

[Grumpy]

THREAD HIJACKED

[reagansghost]

THREAD HIJACKED

yup, hijacked and destroyed

next

[T. A. Gardner]

Short of breathalyzing every customer, how is a gas station--particularly a self-serve one with pay-at-the-pump--supposed to know if a customer is legally drunk? This is particularly true with the low .08 limit on BAC where a customer could easily be completely capable but still legally over the limit.

It is absolutely insane to argue that a gas station should be able to know somehow a customer is legally drunk and not sell them gasoline.

So, under this New Mexico ruling, would a person who is not legally drunk who buys gasoline for a legally drunk person result in the station still being responsible? This is one of those insane rulings that almost always comes from the Left and it's in a state that leans Left...

[Text Drivers are Killers]

So what happens when a drunk driver uses a self service pump at a combination convenience store and gas station, and has no human interaction while making a gas purchase?

Will they have to install alcohol breathalyzers on all their gas pumps and require every customer to blow into it? Will they have to have a dispenser for sanitary, unused mouth pieces?

Which would raise the question of what if a drunk driver has a passenger who has not had any alcohol and gets that person to blow into the machine?

Will this mean the end of self serve gasoline pumps in NM?

I don't like this idea either. We need much stiffer penalties for DUI. That's the answer/ First time offenders should do some jail time and second time offenders some prison time.