Common Law Cases Flashcards
West Case and Cullum Case
Gary L West v Exxon the FACTS
Gary West and his wife are plaintiff (pi) - they filed civil lawsuit against Tarver (triangle) defendant and East TN Power Oil Company (operates an Exxon)
Tarver drunk, wants beer, Dorthy Thomas (store clerk) denies, knows he is drunk, three dollars for gas
alarm in store, Thomas activated pump outside
Drinnon outside cleaning/trash, Drinnon smelled alchol on Tarver knew speech slurred
do not know if Drinnon pumped gas
Tarver drove off, wrong lane hit Mr/Mrs West
without gas Tarver would not have made it to accident
why are these common law cases?
there is not any “law” passed by the legislators which apply to this fact pattern. So the courts decision/ruling is “common law” and has effect of a law passed by the legislators
no law passed where says cannot serve drunk driver or customer
respondeat superior for West case
companies are responsible for the acts of their employees while they are performing work duties. you cannot sue the employees individually. so the fact that Drinnon etc were off duty does not matter. TN SC must take the facts as they are given
employees do not get sued
Should Exxon be legaly (nor morally) liable for the injuries to the Plaintiff based ONLY the facts given. Why or why not?
should be liable because multiple employees knew he was drunk and did not report DUI/assisted drunk man in receiving gas
what other facts would you want to know to make a better decision whether Exxon should be dismissed from the case?
if Drennon actively pumped the gas for Tarver
where was Tarver coming from drunk (a bar - is the bartender liable for giving him too much to drink)
what business policies/rules would you create based on this case?
do not sell gas to someone who appears to be drunk
call police or uber/driver
talk to driver to attempt to delay while calling police
court decision of west case
found Exxon owed a duty to people out on the road if they sell gas to an obviously intoxicated driver
assisting in obviously intoxicated driver while pumping gas
Cullum v McCool/Walmart the FACTS
Ms. Cullum went to WalMart for groceries went to car for loading them
Ms. McCool got in car, reversed, backed directly into Ms Cullum - knocked over, shopping cart ontop
Ms. McCool attempts to move Ms. Cullum picking up her leg in extreme positions causing her excruciating pain
employees refused to fill McCool prescription because she was obviously intoxicated - because not filled she became belligerent – ordered her to leave the store (done this before/pharmacy employees familiar with behavior)
respondeat superior for Cullum case
companies are responsible for the acts of their employees while they are performing work duties
what is the differnce between the plaintiff/defendant relationship/connection in West Case comapred to the plaintiff/defendant relationship/connection in the Cullum case
happened directly on Walmart’s property
Walmart employees were familiar with McCool and her behavior
assume that Walmart employees were familiar with McCool and her habitual intoxication and that Walmart employees were aware that she was alone and would be operating a vehicle in an intoxicated state. Does this change your opinon
Pharmacy employees vs all employees liable because they knew she had a history of being this way - other customers put in danger
what business policies can be put in place because of the Cullums case?
unsafe situations that effect employees or customers are to be reported by calling mangers, police or designated security
motion to dismiss
no witnesses are allowed, not a trial
just attorneys arguing the law
(can submit affidavits - statements of witnesses)
for both West and Cullum case they are at TN SC
can either dismiss case forever or remand/send back to trial court with jury trial
Court decided for West case
Exxon should stay in case
Court ruling: duty to people out on the road if they sells gas to obviously intoxicated driver (Thomas) and/or assist pumping (Drinnon)
issue: was he a driver
Court ruling for Cullum case
court ruling: owe duty to protect customers (from potential/foreseeable harm - because McCool potential harm)
issue: was she forseeable harm
plaintiff customer (more of a responsibility)
offer Uber/side tracked (distract)/call police (do everything you can to be held less liable)
