West and Richardson are suing East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co for negligently selling gas to Taver when Taver was obviously intoxicated. On a separate sheet of paper, using what you learned from the Chapter Seven, Tennessee's dram shop act, and Brown v. Harkleroad (both described in the case), answer the following questions: 1. Will it be difficult for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult? 2. What about whether East Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer needs to have the word "reasonable" in it. 3. Did East Tennessee cause the damage? Hint: Don't forget you need to think about both actual and proximate cause. 4. Why will it be easy for West and Richardson to prove the injury and damage element of negligence? 5. Defenses. Assuming West and Richardson are able to prove duty, breach of duty, cause (both actual and proximate) and damage, by the preponderance of the evidence. East Pioneer will then have the opportunity to assert defenses. a Contributory or comparative negligence. Does this theory seem relevant? b. Assumption of the risk. Does this theory seem relevant? 6. If West and Richardson are able to prove their claim, and East Tennessee is unable to prove defenses, estimate the amount of money West and Richardson are likely to win. Explain how you arrived at your estimate. a. West b. Richardson ed case and answer the questions below: t for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult? ether Fast Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer needs to have the word "reasonable" in it. с Q Search Negligence Case West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. In Knox County Tennessee, a convenience store clerk refused to sell Brian Taver beer because he was already intoxicated. However, the clerk eventually activated the gas pump and, with the assistance of two additional store employees, who helped Taver operate the pump. Taver was able to purchase a small amount of gas. Taver then drove off, going the wrong way on the highway and without his headlights on. Shortly afterward, he crashed into an oncoming car, injuring Gary West and Michelle Richardson. West suffered several fractures of his legs, a head injury, and a broken elbow. West works in the construction industry. West, who has basic health insurance provided by his employer, was left with over $200,000 in personal debt as a consequence of the accident. Richardson suffered a severe closed-head injury. Richardson is an administrative assistant for the state of Tennessee. Her employer provided better health insurance coverage, so she did not end up with personal debt as a consequence of the accident. Both West and Richardson endured much pain and suffering. Both were unable to work for the year following the accident. West and Richardson sued East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. [hereinafter East Tennessee], the owner and operator of the gas station/convenience store, for negligently selling gas to the obviously intoxicated Taver. West and Richardson also sued Taver. Taver's insurance company settled the case out of court. Taver's insurance company settled for the amount of coverage provided by Taver's policy--$100,000 per person, per accident The convenience store, employees are agents of East Tennessee. A company is responsible for the acts of its employees, as long as they are acting within the scope of their employment, e.g., as long as they were doing their jobs. Tennessee has two rules currently that are relevant to the case. The first rule is a law the Tennessee legislature passed a law in 1985 known as a "dram shop act." The Tennessee Dram Shop Act imposes liability on commercial vendors or social hosts who sell alcoholic beverages to minors and to obviously intoxicated persons who injure third parties. The second rule is a precedent created by a Tennessee court in 1955. The precedent, announced in Brown v. Harkleroad, 287 S.W.2d 92, is that a parent is not responsible when that parent relinquishes control of a vehicle to his or her son or daughter. In Harkleroad, the court refused to impose liability on a father who bought a vehicle for his son, when the father knew the son was a reckless and often drunken driver. e attached case and answer the questions below: be difficult for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult? about whether East Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer.needs to have the word "reasonable" in it. Q Search HD B F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 FB F9 F10 ►
West and Richardson are suing East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co for negligently selling gas to Taver when Taver was obviously intoxicated. On a separate sheet of paper, using what you learned from the Chapter Seven, Tennessee's dram shop act, and Brown v. Harkleroad (both described in the case), answer the following questions: 1. Will it be difficult for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult? 2. What about whether East Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer needs to have the word "reasonable" in it. 3. Did East Tennessee cause the damage? Hint: Don't forget you need to think about both actual and proximate cause. 4. Why will it be easy for West and Richardson to prove the injury and damage element of negligence? 5. Defenses. Assuming West and Richardson are able to prove duty, breach of duty, cause (both actual and proximate) and damage, by the preponderance of the evidence. East Pioneer will then have the opportunity to assert defenses. a Contributory or comparative negligence. Does this theory seem relevant? b. Assumption of the risk. Does this theory seem relevant? 6. If West and Richardson are able to prove their claim, and East Tennessee is unable to prove defenses, estimate the amount of money West and Richardson are likely to win. Explain how you arrived at your estimate. a. West b. Richardson ed case and answer the questions below: t for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult? ether Fast Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer needs to have the word "reasonable" in it. с Q Search Negligence Case West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. In Knox County Tennessee, a convenience store clerk refused to sell Brian Taver beer because he was already intoxicated. However, the clerk eventually activated the gas pump and, with the assistance of two additional store employees, who helped Taver operate the pump. Taver was able to purchase a small amount of gas. Taver then drove off, going the wrong way on the highway and without his headlights on. Shortly afterward, he crashed into an oncoming car, injuring Gary West and Michelle Richardson. West suffered several fractures of his legs, a head injury, and a broken elbow. West works in the construction industry. West, who has basic health insurance provided by his employer, was left with over $200,000 in personal debt as a consequence of the accident. Richardson suffered a severe closed-head injury. Richardson is an administrative assistant for the state of Tennessee. Her employer provided better health insurance coverage, so she did not end up with personal debt as a consequence of the accident. Both West and Richardson endured much pain and suffering. Both were unable to work for the year following the accident. West and Richardson sued East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. [hereinafter East Tennessee], the owner and operator of the gas station/convenience store, for negligently selling gas to the obviously intoxicated Taver. West and Richardson also sued Taver. Taver's insurance company settled the case out of court. Taver's insurance company settled for the amount of coverage provided by Taver's policy--$100,000 per person, per accident The convenience store, employees are agents of East Tennessee. A company is responsible for the acts of its employees, as long as they are acting within the scope of their employment, e.g., as long as they were doing their jobs. Tennessee has two rules currently that are relevant to the case. The first rule is a law the Tennessee legislature passed a law in 1985 known as a "dram shop act." The Tennessee Dram Shop Act imposes liability on commercial vendors or social hosts who sell alcoholic beverages to minors and to obviously intoxicated persons who injure third parties. The second rule is a precedent created by a Tennessee court in 1955. The precedent, announced in Brown v. Harkleroad, 287 S.W.2d 92, is that a parent is not responsible when that parent relinquishes control of a vehicle to his or her son or daughter. In Harkleroad, the court refused to impose liability on a father who bought a vehicle for his son, when the father knew the son was a reckless and often drunken driver. e attached case and answer the questions below: be difficult for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult? about whether East Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer.needs to have the word "reasonable" in it. Q Search HD B F3 F4 F5 F6 F7 FB F9 F10 ►
Related questions
Question
Answer the questions below related to the negligence case. Thank you.
Transcribed Image Text:West and Richardson are suing East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co for negligently selling gas to Taver when
Taver was obviously intoxicated. On a separate sheet of paper, using what you learned from the Chapter
Seven, Tennessee's dram shop act, and Brown v. Harkleroad (both described in the case), answer the following
questions:
1. Will it be difficult for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is
this question difficult?
2. What about whether East Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer needs to have the
word "reasonable" in it.
3. Did East Tennessee cause the damage? Hint: Don't forget you need to think about both actual and
proximate cause.
4. Why will it be easy for West and Richardson to prove the injury and damage element of negligence?
5. Defenses. Assuming West and Richardson are able to prove duty, breach of duty, cause (both actual and
proximate) and damage, by the preponderance of the evidence. East Pioneer will then have the
opportunity to assert defenses.
a Contributory or comparative negligence. Does this theory seem relevant?
b.
Assumption of the risk. Does this theory seem relevant?
6. If West and Richardson are able to prove their claim, and East Tennessee is unable to prove defenses,
estimate the amount of money West and Richardson are likely to win. Explain how you arrived at your
estimate.
a.
West
b.
Richardson
ed case and answer the questions below:
t for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult?
ether Fast Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer needs to have the word "reasonable" in it.
с
Q Search
![Negligence Case
West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co.
In Knox County Tennessee, a convenience store clerk refused to sell Brian Taver beer because he was
already intoxicated. However, the clerk eventually activated the gas pump and, with the assistance of two
additional store employees, who helped Taver operate the pump. Taver was able to purchase a small amount of
gas.
Taver then drove off, going the wrong way on the highway and without his headlights on. Shortly
afterward, he crashed into an oncoming car, injuring Gary West and Michelle Richardson.
West suffered several fractures of his legs, a head injury, and a broken elbow. West works in the
construction industry. West, who has basic health insurance provided by his employer, was left with over
$200,000 in personal debt as a consequence of the accident. Richardson suffered a severe closed-head injury.
Richardson is an administrative assistant for the state of Tennessee. Her employer provided better
health insurance coverage, so she did not end up with personal debt as a consequence of the accident.
Both West and Richardson endured much pain and suffering. Both were unable to work for the year
following the accident.
West and Richardson sued East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. [hereinafter East Tennessee], the
owner and operator of the gas station/convenience store, for negligently selling gas to the obviously
intoxicated Taver.
West and Richardson also sued Taver. Taver's insurance company settled the case out of court. Taver's
insurance company settled for the amount of coverage provided by Taver's policy--$100,000 per person, per
accident
The convenience store, employees are agents of East Tennessee. A company is responsible for the acts
of its employees, as long as they are acting within the scope of their employment, e.g., as long as they were
doing their jobs.
Tennessee has two rules currently that are relevant to the case. The first rule is a law the Tennessee
legislature passed a law in 1985 known as a "dram shop act." The Tennessee Dram Shop Act imposes liability
on commercial vendors or social hosts who sell alcoholic beverages to minors and to obviously intoxicated
persons who injure third parties.
The second rule is a precedent created by a Tennessee court in 1955. The precedent, announced in
Brown v. Harkleroad, 287 S.W.2d 92, is that a parent is not responsible when that parent relinquishes control of
a vehicle to his or her son or daughter. In Harkleroad, the court refused to impose liability on a father who
bought a vehicle for his son, when the father knew the
son was a reckless and often drunken driver.
e attached case and answer the questions below:
be difficult for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult?
about whether East Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer.needs to have the word "reasonable" in it.
Q Search
HD
B
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
FB
F9
F10
►](/v2/_next/image?url=https%3A%2F%2Fcontent.bartleby.com%2Fqna-images%2Fquestion%2F2f45bebc-2afe-45cc-8e28-eea88d146913%2F82650fcb-997c-42b3-b920-64207d5a19bb%2Fqqelrgf_processed.jpeg&w=3840&q=75)
Transcribed Image Text:Negligence Case
West v. East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co.
In Knox County Tennessee, a convenience store clerk refused to sell Brian Taver beer because he was
already intoxicated. However, the clerk eventually activated the gas pump and, with the assistance of two
additional store employees, who helped Taver operate the pump. Taver was able to purchase a small amount of
gas.
Taver then drove off, going the wrong way on the highway and without his headlights on. Shortly
afterward, he crashed into an oncoming car, injuring Gary West and Michelle Richardson.
West suffered several fractures of his legs, a head injury, and a broken elbow. West works in the
construction industry. West, who has basic health insurance provided by his employer, was left with over
$200,000 in personal debt as a consequence of the accident. Richardson suffered a severe closed-head injury.
Richardson is an administrative assistant for the state of Tennessee. Her employer provided better
health insurance coverage, so she did not end up with personal debt as a consequence of the accident.
Both West and Richardson endured much pain and suffering. Both were unable to work for the year
following the accident.
West and Richardson sued East Tennessee Pioneer Oil Co. [hereinafter East Tennessee], the
owner and operator of the gas station/convenience store, for negligently selling gas to the obviously
intoxicated Taver.
West and Richardson also sued Taver. Taver's insurance company settled the case out of court. Taver's
insurance company settled for the amount of coverage provided by Taver's policy--$100,000 per person, per
accident
The convenience store, employees are agents of East Tennessee. A company is responsible for the acts
of its employees, as long as they are acting within the scope of their employment, e.g., as long as they were
doing their jobs.
Tennessee has two rules currently that are relevant to the case. The first rule is a law the Tennessee
legislature passed a law in 1985 known as a "dram shop act." The Tennessee Dram Shop Act imposes liability
on commercial vendors or social hosts who sell alcoholic beverages to minors and to obviously intoxicated
persons who injure third parties.
The second rule is a precedent created by a Tennessee court in 1955. The precedent, announced in
Brown v. Harkleroad, 287 S.W.2d 92, is that a parent is not responsible when that parent relinquishes control of
a vehicle to his or her son or daughter. In Harkleroad, the court refused to impose liability on a father who
bought a vehicle for his son, when the father knew the
son was a reckless and often drunken driver.
e attached case and answer the questions below:
be difficult for West and Richardson to prove that East Tennessee has a duty to them? Why is this question difficult?
about whether East Tennessee Pioneer breached a duty? Hint: Your answer.needs to have the word "reasonable" in it.
Q Search
HD
B
F3
F4
F5
F6
F7
FB
F9
F10
►
Expert Solution
This question has been solved!
Explore an expertly crafted, step-by-step solution for a thorough understanding of key concepts.
Step by step
Solved in 2 steps
