## Facts

- Brian Tarver, an intoxicated driver, entered a convenience store and requested beer while appearing visibly impaired (odor of alcohol, staggering).
- The clerk refused to sell Tarver beer but sold him $3 of gasoline.
- Two off-duty employees assisted Tarver at the pump by helping him fuel his vehicle; the extent of their awareness of his intoxication was disputed.
- Tarver drove away without headlights and soon caused a head-on collision with Gary L. West and Michell B. Richardson, injuring them.
- West and Richardson sued the store operator alleging ordinary negligence, negligence per se, and negligent entrustment based on furnishing gasoline to an obviously intoxicated driver.

## Issues

1. Whether convenience store employees owe a duty of reasonable care to motorists when they sell gasoline to an obviously intoxicated driver and/or assist the driver in pumping gasoline.
2. Whether summary judgment was proper on plaintiffs’ ordinary negligence claim given the alleged foreseeable risk created by selling and pumping gasoline for an obviously intoxicated driver.
3. Whether negligence per se or negligent entrustment theories applied based on statutes or doctrines regulating alcohol sales or entrustment.

## Decision

- The Tennessee Supreme Court held that convenience store employees owe a duty of reasonable care to persons on the roadway when they sell gasoline to an obviously intoxicated driver and/or assist the driver in pumping gasoline.
- The court affirmed the dismissal of the negligence per se and negligent entrustment claims.
- The court reversed the trial court’s summary judgment on the ordinary negligence claim and remanded for further proceedings on that claim.
- The court emphasized that breach, proximate causation, and damages were not resolved by recognizing a duty and remained for determination on remand.

## Legal Principles

- Duty in Tennessee negligence law is a question of law, and foreseeability of harm is the primary consideration in determining whether a duty exists.
- A duty may arise from affirmative conduct that foreseeably creates or increases a risk of harm to third parties, even without a special relationship between the defendant and the injured party.
- Selling gasoline to, and especially assisting in fueling, an obviously intoxicated driver can be treated as affirmative conduct that facilitates continued impaired driving and creates a foreseeable risk to the motoring public.
- Recognition of duty does not impose automatic liability; whether the defendant breached the standard of reasonable care and whether the conduct proximately caused the injury are fact-dependent.
- Dram shop-style statutory theories tied to alcohol sales did not control where alcohol was refused; common-law negligence provided the operative basis for potential liability.

## Conclusion

The court recognized a common-law duty of reasonable care where a convenience store’s affirmative acts of selling gasoline and assisting in fueling an obviously intoxicated driver foreseeably increased the risk of harm to other motorists, allowing the plaintiffs’ negligence claim to proceed while leaving intact the dismissal of negligence per se and negligent entrustment.


West v. E. Tenn. Pioneer Oil Co., 172 S.W.3d 545 (Tenn. 2005)