What is the "real" legal liability to a consumer for accidentally breaking a gas pump?

Danny D'Amico

unread,

Feb 10, 2014, 10:12:52 PM2/10/14

to

Q: What is the legal liability to a consumer for breaking a gas pump?

Saw this sign on the gas pump today:
http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/12448571815_987592d487_o.gif
Which said, verbatim:
"Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away
with nozzle."

Asked the attendant, who explained that people do it all the
time. He said the nozzle is designed to break away, when people
forget to remove it before driving off.

My legal question is who is responsible, legally, if I
*accidentally* drive away and the pump handle breaks away
at the engineered-in break-away point?

On the one hand, it seems, to me, a layman, that accidents that
are clearly foreseeable by the business owner, are merely the cost of
doing business (e.g., breakage in a China shop is inevitable).

On the other hand, I'm sure driving away with the nozzle in the
car is a dumb mistake, made by a consumer who should know better.

But, my question is, if it happens, by accident, do they really
force the innocent (but clumsy) customer to pay repair costs?

Stuart A. Bronstein

unread,

Feb 12, 2014, 12:11:51 AM2/12/14

to

"Danny D'Amico" <da...@is.invalid> wrote:

> My legal question is who is responsible, legally, if I
> *accidentally* drive away and the pump handle breaks away
> at the engineered-in break-away point?

The person whose negligence caused the damage is responsible.

> On the one hand, it seems, to me, a layman, that accidents that
> are clearly foreseeable by the business owner, are merely the
> cost of doing business (e.g., breakage in a China shop is
> inevitable).

And the business may get insurance to cover that cost. But then
the insurance company has the right to sue the customer to get its
money back.

> On the other hand, I'm sure driving away with the nozzle in the
> car is a dumb mistake, made by a consumer who should know
> better.

Which is why it is negligent.

> But, my question is, if it happens, by accident, do they really
> force the innocent (but clumsy) customer to pay repair costs?

Unless the customer has an exceptionally good reason why he was not
negligent, he certainly could be held responsible. Will he?
That's up to the company or their insurer.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Roy

unread,

Feb 12, 2014, 1:27:21 AM2/12/14

to

Why wouldn't the customer be responsible? You want the rest of us to
pay more for gas to cover the loss caused by your ooops?

The breakaway device has to be replaced at a minimum. The pump nozzle
and hose can also be damaged especially the ones with the vapor recovery
stuff. The pump can be out of service for a few days with a loss of
business.

The good news: Its covered by your car's liability insurance policy.
The average claim is $250 or so for this type of accident.

Barry Gold

unread,

Feb 11, 2014, 10:56:12 PM2/11/14

to

On 2/10/2014 7:12 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:

> Q: What is the legal liability to a consumer for breaking a gas pump?
>
> Saw this sign on the gas pump today:
> http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/12448571815_987592d487_o.gif
> Which said, verbatim:
> "Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away
> with nozzle."

> But, my question is, if it happens, by accident, do they really
> force the innocent (but clumsy) customer to pay repair costs?

I don't know if they _do_, but they certainly can. Basic negligence
law: if you do something that a reasonably prudent person would not do,
or you fail to do something that a RPP _would_ do under those
circumstances, and somebody else is damaged by your actions, you are
responsible.(*)

Just as much as if you drove into the gas station too fast and crashed
into the island, damaging the gas pump or anything else.

Dumb mistakes (as opposed to ordinary mistakes) are not the sort of
thing a RPP would do.

(*) There's also a requirement about "proximate cause" -- that is, that
the end result is a reasonably forseeable result of what you did/failed
to do. But I don't think that's a question here.

slide

unread,

Feb 12, 2014, 9:40:15 AM2/12/14

to

On 2/10/2014 8:12 PM, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> Q: What is the legal liability to a consumer for breaking a gas pump?
>
> Saw this sign on the gas pump today:
> http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/12448571815_987592d487_o.gif
> Which said, verbatim:
> "Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away
> with nozzle."

[BREAK]

> My legal question is who is responsible, legally, if I
> *accidentally* drive away and the pump handle breaks away
> at the engineered-in break-away point?
>
> On the one hand, it seems, to me, a layman, that accidents that
> are clearly foreseeable by the business owner, are merely the cost of
> doing business (e.g., breakage in a China shop is inevitable).
>
> On the other hand, I'm sure driving away with the nozzle in the
> car is a dumb mistake, made by a consumer who should know better.
>
> But, my question is, if it happens, by accident, do they really
> force the innocent (but clumsy) customer to pay repair costs?
>

If intent were required to demonstrate negligence, then there would be
almost no insurance claims. So the answer is yes, the customer is
responsible for his negligence even if he lacked the intent to damage
the fuel pump.

As to your example of the china shop, customers there are also held
responsible for damaging the merchandise and for the same reason. That
is the owner may placard saying that customers are responsible for
damage to merchandise just as the fuel stop placarded the warning to
customers about damaging the pumps.

In both cases, the placard should raise customers' awareness of the
issue and make damaging the pumps (or china) less likely due to enhanced
care on the part of the customer. If customers are either business
aren't willing to assume responsibility for their actions, then they can
move on to alternative places of business.

micky

unread,

Feb 12, 2014, 9:59:32 AM2/12/14

to

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 03:12:52 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D'Amico"
<da...@is.invalid> wrote:

>
>Saw this sign on the gas pump today:
> http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/12448571815_987592d487_o.gif
>Which said, verbatim:
> "Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away
> with nozzle."

I am no lawyer, but I would have thought that was true, even without a
sign. Whose fault is it if not the driver!

>My legal question is who is responsible, legally, if I
>*accidentally* drive away and the pump handle breaks away
>at the engineered-in break-away point?

IIRC, the prior situation was that the handle/hose broke at random
places, sometimes letting gasoline pour all over the gas station
pavement. Then if you were making a movie, it all exploded, and I know
sometimes it really did catch fire and/or explode. Would you rather
pay for that? Better there should be an engineered break-away point
which I assume is also designed to not cause a gas spill.

>
>On the one hand, it seems, to me, a layman, that accidents that
>are clearly foreseeable by the business owner, are merely the cost of
>doing business (e.g., breakage in a China shop is inevitable).

If the china shop doesn't charge for things a customer breaks, isn't
that just to not lose a customer, and because it can be a pain in the
neck to collect the money, and might not the court only want to give him
what he paid for it, not what he's asking for it? (which isn't as much
and which he might not want to disclose) Not because it's not the
customer's responsibilty (unless it was placed precariously, maybe).

Have you seen those big yellow plastic barrels filled with sand, much
bigger than a real barrel, that they place at exit ramps, to the right
of the expressway and to the left of the exit ramp, to protect people
who accidentally drive between the two, so they don't go smack against
the steel guard rail? Did you know that in NYS, last I read in the
newspaper (when I lived there 30 years ago) and maybe other states, if
you hit them with your car and break them, the state charges you for
doing that? They were at least 500 dollars a piece, counting
everything, 30 years ago, and you could easily break 3 of them.

And there's no sign, "Driver responsible for damage to barrels".

I could argue, You shouldn't have left these fragile things where I
could hit them. You should have just had the steel guard rail, which is
harder to damage. Or no rail, and then I would just drive down the
hill.

>On the other hand, I'm sure driving away with the nozzle in the
>car is a dumb mistake, made by a consumer who should know better.
>
>But, my question is, if it happens, by accident, do they really
>force the innocent (but clumsy) customer to pay repair costs?

I'll betcha at least sometimes.

Innocent has a lot of different meanings and I'm not sure the one you
need applies here. He doesn't have criminal intent, or intent to
damage, but it's not like he's a child so innocent he doesn't know how
sex works. Just about everyone over 16 knows if you don't take out the
gas nozzle, something will break. So it's negligence.

Moses

unread,

Feb 12, 2014, 2:58:50 PM2/12/14

to

On Tue, 11 Feb 2014 03:12:52 +0000 (UTC), "Danny D'Amico"
<da...@is.invalid> wrote:

>My legal question is who is responsible, legally, if I
>*accidentally* drive away and the pump handle breaks away
>at the engineered-in break-away point?

If you damage someone else's property you are responsible for
repairing the damage. No different then if you got in a car accident
with a street light pole knocking it down. The city would send you a
nice $2k bill then you could submit to your insurance company for
payment.

Mike Jacobs

unread,

Feb 13, 2014, 10:47:48 PM2/13/14

to

On Monday, February 10, 2014 10:12:52 PM UTC-5, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> Q: What is the legal liability to a consumer for breaking a gas pump?

Common sense, and common law, would apply the same as for anybody else
breaking anything else that belongs to another.

Tort law imposes liability on someone who negligently causes harm to
the person or property of another.

The key word is "negligent." That means doing something a reasonably
prudent person should not do, _or_ failing to do something which, under
all the circumstances, a reasonably prudent person _should_ have done.

I would surmise that, in virtually all circumstances I can think of,
driving away with the pump's gas nozzle still in your car's filler
pipe is something a reasonable person should not do. Thus, the driver
who does that would be liable to the owner of the pump, to repair
the damage.

> "Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away
> with nozzle."

Such a sign does nothing to _add_ liability that did not already exist,
unless circumstances would create a binding contract and impose liability
on basis of contract rather than tort. Since tort law imposes liability
on the negligent driver anyway, it is unnecessary to even inquire whether
the sign imposes any additional contractual liability. Most likely the
sign, like the one in many tchatchke shops, is intended as a warning of
what may happen and who will be held responsible, and to prevent any
reasonable claim of surprise that this would be so, not as an attempt
to form a binding contract that would change in any way the parties'
existing duties to each other.

> Asked the attendant, who explained that people do it all the
> time. He said the nozzle is designed to break away, when people
> forget to remove it before driving off.

Yes, people do negligent things all the time. But part of what a reasonable
self-service motorist should always do, after filling up, is ensure that
the pump hose nozzle is removed from the filler tube and properly replaced
on the pump before also securing the filler cap on the car's gas tank,
and _then_ getting back in the car to drive off (assuming payment was made
in advance, as is usually required these days).

> My legal question is who is responsible, legally, if I
> *accidentally* drive away and the pump handle breaks away
> at the engineered-in break-away point?

The engineered break-away point is designed to _minimize_ the damage that
occurs when a negligent driver drives away with the nozzle still inserted.
Why would you think it immunizes the negligent driver against liability
for any damage that _does_ nevertheless occur as a result of his negligence?

> On the one hand, it seems, to me, a layman, that accidents that
> are clearly foreseeable by the business owner, are merely the cost of
> doing business (e.g., breakage in a China shop is inevitable).

Why would you assume that a customer causing breakage in a China shop
(don't know why you capitalized this, if you're referring to porcelain
ware rather than the Asian country) wouldn't _also_ have to pay for
damage he causes? Haven't you seen the "you break it, you bought it"
signs in such places?

The fact that a type of damage is foreseeable from a certain negligent
act cuts two ways. It means _both_ the merchant, _and_ the customer,
should be aware of the possibility of the damage happening, and do
whatever they can reasonably do to prevent damage from occurring. The
only thing within the merchant's control is the design of the hose/nozzle
itself; he _has_ done _his_ part of the job, by furnishing his pumps
with the safest available design of breakaway nozzles. But the motorist
_failed_ to do _his_ part, which only he was in a position to control
(at a self-service station, that is) and thus the only person who was
causally negligent in this situation is the drive-away motorist.

In addition, "foreseeability" is an element of the existence of a tort
duty in the first place. The reason the motorist _needs_ to be vigilant
to hang up the pump's hose nozzle properly before driving off, is that
it _is_ foreseeable damage could occur if he failed to do so properly.
That foreseeability is also an element of "proximate cause," which means
the causal link between the negligence and the damage is something a
reasonably prudent person should have been able to predict ahead of time,
and account for by taking reasonable preventive measures. Any way you
slice it, it's the motorist's fault if he drives away with the nozzle
still in his filler tube, and nobody else's.

> On the other hand, I'm sure driving away with the nozzle in the
> car is a dumb mistake, made by a consumer who should know better.

As you said.

> But, my question is, if it happens, by accident, do they really
> force the innocent (but clumsy) customer to pay repair costs?

"By accident" is how _all_ negligently caused damage happens. (If
it wasn't "by accident," then it would either be "on purpose," i.e.
an intentional tort such as battery or trespass; or it would be
"nobody's fault," but only if it's the kind of accident that no
reasonable amount of preventive measures could have prevented --
such as a tree limb falling on a parked car, or other natural
disasters generally referred to as an "Act of G-d."

If you run into another car at a red light "by accident" because
you didn't stop in time, does that fact that you didn't _intend_
to smash their car (and give the occupants whiplash) relieve you
of liability? Of course not. Tort law imposes liability for
negligently caused, as well as intentionally caused, harms.

Also, in most states, I would surmise this is going to be covered
by the motorist's auto insurance policy, since he caused the
damage by operating his vehicle. In most states, he does not even
have to pay a deductible, on a 3rd party liability claim such as
this. But, his rates may go up as a result.

--
This posting is for discussion purposes, not professional advice.
Anything you post on this Newsgroup is public information.
I am not your lawyer, and you are not my client in any specific legal matter.
For confidential professional advice, consult your own lawyer in a private communication.

Mike Jacobs
LAW OFFICE OF W. MICHAEL JACOBS
10440 Little Patuxent Pkwy #300
Columbia, MD 21044
(tel) 410-740-5685

Barry Gold

unread,

Feb 16, 2014, 1:03:25 PM2/16/14

unread,

Feb 18, 2014, 6:48:06 PM2/18/14

to

Judy Miller <jmi...@not.gmail.com> writes:

>If, for example, I'm running a business, and I'm selling fragile things,
>and, if I place those fragile things on shelves that are above a hard
>floor, how can I not expect breakage.

So what? Expecting, and even planning for, breakage doesn't
mean the customer who broke it isn't liable for it.

>In fact, it would be illegal for me to purposefully place those fragile
>items on the shelves, just so that families would stop by due to my

As they say, citation please. Illegal under what law and doctrine?
That said, I could imagine in some cases the doctrine of mitigation
limiting the damages the shop owner could sue for, depending on how
exactly the customer acted.

>Same with the gas pump. The owner of the gas station is operating a
>business. Said owner can reasonably expect a few customers to accidentally
>(not negligently) forget that the pump is still in the vehicle.

False dichotomy. While "accidentally" does not necessarily imply
"negligently", neither does it necessarily negate "negligently".
"Negligently" doesn't need to require intent. You can be negligent
without intending to be. So yes, you can do "accidental" things (which
from your phrasing I assume you mean "without intent") that are
nonetheless negligent. Mike Jacobs has given some excellent examples in
his post on this.

>If said owner doesn't bother to pump the gas himself, said owner is
>not legally allowed to enforce a tort statute on what amounts to
>the owners risk of doing business.

Says who/what?

--
Rich Carreiro rlc-...@rlcarr.com

nos...@isp.com

unread,

Feb 18, 2014, 1:42:57 PM2/18/14

to

On 15 Feb 2014, Judy Miller <jmi...@not.gmail.com> wrote:

> On 13 Feb 2014, Mike Jacobs wrote:
>
>> Tort law imposes liability on someone who negligently
>> causes harm to the person or property of another.
>
> The keyword I would think is "negligently" versus "accidentally".

There generally isn't a "versus" relationship between "negligently"
and "accidentally". To the extent understandable in law related
contexts, these words signify overlapping categories. Many accidents
by or involving human actors result from one degree or another of the
actor's negligence; some do not; and vice versa.

But while it is trivially obvious that the language one uses to
describe and argue for and to rationalize law related outcomes will be
important, presuming that law related controversies arising from
variations on the scenarios that provide the grist for this thread can
be meaningfully resolved or even seriously affected by focus on
"keywords" is something of a Fools Errand.

Rather, and as Mr. Jacobs and others have explained correctly,
controversies that result in litigation about these matters generally
will be determined as they should by careful attention to what in the
particular circumstances at issue the persons involved saw and heard
and chose to do and not to do and, if/as relevant, should not have
done or should not have failed to do in light of the relevant evolving
(more or less) general principles of law in the jurisdiction.

> If, for example, I'm running a business, and I'm selling
> fragile things, and, if I place those fragile things on shelves
> that are above a hard floor, how can I not expect breakage.

If, for example, a prospective customer enters a store and sees that
there are fragile things on shelves that are above a hard floor, how
can the customer not be expected to take take care to avoid dropping
and breaking those things.

If, for example, a prospective customer enters a store with fragile
things on shelves that are above a hard floor and does not notice that
those things in plain sight are fragile and does not see that the
floor on which the customer is walking and standing is hard and if
such a person chooses to handle those things in a manner indifferent
to whether they are fragile and are likely to drop from her or his
hands or be knocked of shelf by him or her and that, if this occurs,
those things will drop onto the hard floor and break, how can the
customer not expect to be deemed careless (negligent) in such event.

> In fact, it would be illegal for me to purposefully place
> those fragile items on the shelves, just so that families
> would stop by due to my attractive store, and, inevitably,
> I could get a lot of force-fed sales out of the kids breaking
> things.

If this "In fact . . . etc." is to suggest that the here hypothesized
store owner engaged in deceptive business practices by deliberately
placing fragile objects on display shelves in ways that somehow
concealed that they would fall as the result merely, e.g., of a
customer walking past the shelves, then so be it. Of course, however,
it would be open to the customer to refuse to acquiesce in the store
owner's demand for payment in such event and, if sued by the store
owner anyway, to try to defend by proving this "in fact" of a
purposeful store set-up. But the OP did not ask about this sort of
scenario.

> Same with the gas pump. The owner of the gas station is
> operating a business. Said owner can reasonably expect
> a few customers to accidentally (not negligently) forget
> that the pump is still in the vehicle.

This is a compressed version of the classic fallacy of circular
definition a/k/a question begging.

> If said owner doesn't bother to pump the gas himself, said
> owner is not legally allowed to enforce a tort statute on what
> amounts to the owners risk of doing business.

The posters who responded earlier to the OP all appeared to one extent
or another implicitly to have made three assumptions.

The first, which very probably was correct, was that there was not a
"tort statute" that was applicable to the sort of scenario about which
he asked. It therefore might be interesting to learn that there is
such a statute although none has yet been quoted or even cited.

The second was that he was asking in effect how and on what basis as a
matter of common law a court in a contested lawsuit probably would
decide whether the customer who drives away with a gas pump nozzle
hanging from his vehicle's fuel intake hose shall be held liable
("what is th[at person's] 'real' liability . . .?") to reimburse the
store owner for the need to replace the nozzle or perhaps entire fuel
hose/nozzle combination.

The second, an alternative, was that the OP was soliciting an informed
suasive sense of what principles of law the (perhaps fictive but, one
might hope, actual) reasonable store operator and reasonable customer
ought voluntarily take into account in deciding whether/how
consensually to resolve a reimbursement claim in such circumstances.

(Oddly, though the OP phrased his query in terms of what "really"
ought and probably would occur, except for one vague allusion in the
nature of an aside, none of the responses I've seen addressed a
practical What-if? alternative -- namely, what if the customer just
drives away and does not stop? Would there then probably be an alert
and available service station employee or owner who chaoses to chase
and is able to catch the customer? Or will the service station
probably have an arrangement with the local or state police to do
that? Or will the customer have used a credit card and, if so, will
the store owner unilaterally add a replace-nozzle fee even though no
such sum was posted? Or whether or not the customer used a credit
card, will there have been a surveillance photo of the customer and of
his vehicle's license plate followed by an actual attempt by the store
owner to sue the customer somewhere? Or are these sorts of What-if?s
so speculative that they reinforce a just-drive-away choice? Or,
perhaps in light of the breath and ambiguity of words like
"responsibility" which convey an ethical/moral as well as law-related
sense of obligation, will the customer have read this thread and have
internalized as a matter of felt ethical responsibility an obligation
voluntarily to acquiesce in and pay whatever the store owner demands
when the customer learns of the nozzle still hanging from his vehicle?
And why not just drive away, sputtering/scraming store owner
notwithstanding? etc., etc. So many possibilities; so little time!)

Mike Jacobs

unread,

Feb 17, 2014, 11:30:18 AM2/17/14

to

On Saturday, February 15, 2014 5:37:56 PM UTC-5, Judy Miller wrote:

> The keyword I would think is "negligently" versus "accidentally".

Agreed.

> If, for example, I'm running a business, and I'm selling fragile things,
> and, if I place those fragile things on shelves that are above a hard
> floor, how can I not expect breakage.

True; but, all that would mean is, the merchant may _share_ the responsibility
with someone else who did something he shouldn't have done, which caused the
damage. As I noted in my first response on this thread, everybody, at all
times, owes a duty to everyone else, to do what they reasonably can under all
the circumstances, to avoid causing foreseeable injury or damage to others. The
fact that an injury is foreseeable doesn't mean that _only_ the merchant is
responsible for his losses. If he has done everything he reasonably can --
frex, putting breakables on a low shelf, and carpeting the floors under those
shelves with thick shock-absorbent padding -- how is he negligent? Yes, things
can break with it being no one's fault. Perhaps an earthquake or even just the
building shifting on its foundation, may knock things off the shelves, or knock
them into each other. In that case, of course the merchant must bear his own
loss.

But that's not what I think you were talking about. You were talking about
someone else -- a customer -- bumping into a fragile piece that was on display,
and breaking it. Wouldn't you agree that customers have a duty, under these
circumstances (i.e. visiting a tchatchke shop), to exercise reasonable care to
avoid breakage? So, the crucial issue then becomes, what is "reasonable care?"
We'll get to that in a minute.

> In fact, it would be illegal for me to purposefully place those fragile
> items on the shelves, just so that families would stop by due to my
> attractive store, and, inevitably, I could get a lot of force-fed
> sales out of the kids breaking things.

"Illegal?" As in, a criminal offense, where the merchant can be fined, or
jailed? THAT sounds awfully harsh. I don't think many legislatures would be
THAT anti-business, in the laws they pass. Although in the modern era,
pro-consumer and pro-"average guy" legislation has gained a toehold, it remains
true that the principal reason the law exists is to protect moneyed interests.
The state legislature is not going to bite the biggest set of
hands that feeds them re-election contributions.

What is _more_ likely to happen is, if a greedy merchant such as the highly
improbable one you describe chooses to sue a customer who has had the
misfortune to enter his shop and fall for the trap, a jury of the customer's
peers will see through the ruse and decide that the customer is "not negligent"
in his actions, thus entering a verdict for the defendant customer. Such a
scheme will not profit the merchant, unless he can pull the wool over the eyes
of, not only a first-time customer who unluckily and naively wanders into his
shop, but also the now-wiser customer's lawyer who has figured out how the
supposed scam works, and a jury who has had the scam explained to them by said
defense lawyer. Do you see how unlikely it is that any merchant, knowing this
is what is likely to happen, would still intentionally set out to "trap"
customers into a "you break it, you bought it" scam as the only way they can
sell their merchandise -- except in the most farcical of highly improbable
slapstick comedies? Yes, I can see Laurel and Hardy, or Mr. Bean, doing a skit
based on such an idea. But not in real life.

> Same with the gas pump. The owner of the gas station is operating a
> business. Said owner can reasonably expect a few customers to accidentally
> (not negligently) forget that the pump is still in the vehicle.

I am deeply curious to have you explain to me just how any self-service gas
station customer could "accidentally (not negligently) forget that the pump is
still in the vehicle." Seriously.

To the contrary, it seems to me _so_ irrefutable that doing so is a negligent
act, that the judge in such a case would be likely to rule such an act
negligent as a matter of law, before the issue even gets submitted to the jury
-- perhaps on a pre-trial summary judgment motion, but at least on a motion for
judgment made at the conclusion of the taking of evidence at the trial. A
directed verdict, in other words.

Now, just because the tchatchke customer, or the gas customer, is the one who
is touching the breakable item at the time something _else_ actively causes it
to break -- say, by negligently bumping into the _customer_ who in turn,
without any negligence on his part, drops the porcelain item, or gets his car
pushed away from the spot where it was parked (with the parking brake on) for
fueling when another car hits it, I would agree that is NOT negligent on the
part of the customer, and he should not be held responsible for the breakage.
But I truly cannot picture a single instance where a customer who _actively_
and in the exercise of self-directed agency does something that directly causes
the breakage, would not be negligent in doing so.

> If said owner doesn't bother to pump the gas himself, said owner is
> not legally allowed to enforce a tort statute on what amounts to
> the owners risk of doing business.

Sorry, that's not what the law says. I sure hope anybody who gets on my jury,
if I am a merchant trying to sue for damage to my gas pump, will not have such
a narrow and anti-business view of how the risks are supposed to be apportioned
betwixt merchant and customer. Don't get me wrong -- you're entitled to have,
and to freely express, your opinion. But, that's what the "voir dire" process
in a jury trial is for: to ask questions to weed out potential jurors whose
opinions leaning one way or the other on some relevant issue would already make
the outcome a foregone conclusion in favor of one side or the other before they
even hear the evidence.

Stuart A. Bronstein

unread,

Feb 20, 2014, 6:49:27 PM2/20/14

to

Bonnie Doon <bonni...@gmail.com> wrote:
> Barry Gold wrote:
>
>> even if the breakage is caused by the customer's negligence, I
>> think recovery would be limited to the actual damages: the cost
>> of the item to the store, plus the cost of storing it from the
>> time it was acquired until it was broken, plus the cost of
>> cleaning up the shards, plus "cost of money" for the price the
>> shop paid.
>
> This is a good point.
>
> 1. If a clumsy patron breaks an item, and if they're forced, by
> law, to pay for that item, they should only be forced to pay for
> the actual cost to the store of that item. Right?

Right. But if the item was unique so that it deprives the store of
the ability to sell it for a profit, the profit may also be part of
the actual cost.

> 2. Even so, it seems to me that I could make a lot of money by
> opening a store and purposefully placing delicate items so that
> they'd inevitably be broken by the patrons.

It would be more trouble than it would be worth, even if you could
make a profit on broken items.

> 3. But, how would I force a patron to pay for the broken item
> anyway? Do I need to sue them in court? Would I have to use
> small claims court?

You would ask them to pay, of course. And many would. But many
would also contest your cliam, and you would have to sue them. Small
claims court is usually the less expensive, quicker option, but it's
not a requirement.

> 4. And what options does a patron have? Can they simply walk out
> of the store? If they do, can I call the police on them?

It is unlikely that you would get the police to intervene. A
shopowner often has the legal right to detain someone and call the
police if it appears they are trying to steal or commit a crime in
his store. So you may be able to detain the person, call the police
and at least have them get his contact information for you, so that
you can sue him.

But there aside from that, there is nothing to stop a person from
walking out the door.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Arth...@invalid.com

unread,

Feb 20, 2014, 11:23:16 PM2/20/14

to

On Wed, 19 Feb 2014 16:22:01 -0600, "news"
<ne...@fx11.iad.highwinds-media.com> wrote:

>
> DD> Asked the attendant, who explained that people do it all the
> DD> time. He said the nozzle is designed to break away, when people
> DD> forget to remove it before driving off.
>
>If the nozzle is _designed_ to break away, then the only damage is replacing
>it with the spare one,

Do you mean the cost of the spare one and the cost of the labor?

> and it can be argued that it's part of the operating
>the pump, however occasional and unfortunate.

Sure, you could argue it, but what gas station owner or judge will
believe you?

>There's no real repair, and in

Maybe an unreal repair? Of course a repair is required.

>fact pump owner has already paid for this accident

Why does it make a difference if he prepared in advance, or if he paid
for the part in advance?

> by (1) buying the pump
>with this feature,

Compared to using the previous model of pump handle, this is called
mitigation of damages. By getting a better pump handle, he has lowered
the damages caused by ripping the handle off. This is to the owner's
credit -- not something that should cost him money (although failure to
buy the better model might have made him liable for damages caused by
gas spillage) -- and the driver is still liable for the damage he has
caused (and there was no spillage.) .

> which probably cost more than the one without it,

On the contrary, the old model is probably not sold in the USA anymore,
and after a transition period of a few years (which I'm sure has
expired) it's probably illegal to install one even if the owner has a
leftover, or if he has a plan to buy one from outside the USA.

>and (2)
>ordering the spare in advance.

Ordering but not having?

If the owner didn't buy a spare in advance, he would include in his
damage suit against the driver the amount of sales he lost until he got
one by having only one pump instead of two, 3 instead of 4, 7 instead of
8, or whatever, and you the driver would argue that he had a duty to
mitigate damages by buying one in advance. In other words, it
benefitted you that he bought a spare in advance. But it doesn't
diminish your liability for the damages actually done .

He would also argue that he had a duty to mitigate damages AFTER THERE
WERE DAMAGES, after the handle was torn off, BUT NOT BEFORE, so if he
hadn't' bought a spare in advance, you might get stuck for the loss of
sales because one pump wasn't working until the new handle arrived and
was installed.

But if, as you say, he did buy the spare handle in advance, that too
makes you no less liable. Imagine your neglgence in managing a
back-yard fire of leaves in the fall caused a fire to the home of your
neighbor. But he had bought a large fire-extinguisher and was able to
put the fire out when there was only 5000 dollars damage. Do you think
his having a fire extinguisher, or a garden hose, in advance, would mean
you weren't liable for the damages you actually caused, the $5000?

Henry Wang

unread,

Feb 20, 2014, 7:19:01 PM2/20/14

to

On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:58:50 -0800, Moses wrote:

> If you damage someone else's property you are responsible for
> repairing the damage.

So, if a neighbor invites the entire block in for a party at
her house, and someone spills a beer on the carpet, you are
responsible for the cleanup/replacement costs of that carpet?

Clearly the owner of the gas station, and the owner of the
porcelain shop, bear the responsibility for inviting people
to their venue.

Mike Jacobs

unread,

Feb 21, 2014, 3:43:49 PM2/21/14

to

On Wednesday, February 19, 2014 5:22:01 PM UTC-5, news wrote:

> DD> "Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away
> DD> with nozzle."

> If the nozzle is _designed_ to break away, then the only damage is replacing
> it with the spare one,

If the _original_ breakaway hose can just be popped right back on, that's not
"damage" -- other than the labor time involved for re-installing it, which does
count as part of legally compensable "damages." But if the car actually drives
away with the breakaway part and it can no longer be found and/or re-used, then
the cost of the replacement part is also part of the "damages." Why would you
assume that the customer gets off the hook if the gas station owner happens to
have a "spare one" lying around?

The sign doesn't say "Customer must pay us $x [the cost of a new hose/nozzle]
any time you drive away, even a few feet, with the nozzle still in your filler
tube." It says the customer is responsible to make good on any "damage" he or
she causes by that act. If the breakaway part can be recovered, and is not in
fact scratched or dented or in need of replacement gaskets or whatnot by reason
of the drive-away, and if it can just be popped right back on even by an
unskilled worker in a couple of seconds, then there is no "damage." But if the
gas station needs to hire a knowledgeable gas-pump repair mechanic to come
inspect the pump and _make_sure_ that's all it needs, and probably needs to
replace the breakaway rubber parts with new gaskets or O-rings after the
originals have been "used" in a breakaway event, then yes, the cost of such a
service visit (parts AND labor) is compensable "damage."

In general, "damage" is a legal term of art that includes any financially-
compensable loss or harm caused by someone else's wrongdoing. It is not limited
to the replacement cost of the broken item, but may include the labor cost of
obtaining and installing a replacement and/or fixing the original into
equivalent condition, as well as any incidental costs (just for example, the
shipping charges for the new hose, sales taxes, etc.) and any consequential
losses that can be directly and proximately traced to the wrongful act (e.g. a
personal injury or death, or damage to _other_ property, caused by the flailing
hose acting as a whip attached to the clueless driver's car as it drives away).

Remember, all of those things should be covered by the wrongful driver's auto
liability insurance.

> and it can be argued that it's part of the operating
> the pump, however occasional and unfortunate.

If in fact there is damage, that is not part of the ordinary and usual
operating costs of the pump, i.e. "normal wear and tear." It is "damage,"
caused by a singular, extraordinary event to which specific harms or losses can
be directly traced, and for which it is therefore reasonable that the law asks
the perpetrator of that act to pay for the damage.

This is neither a difficult nor an unfair distinction to draw, whether in
theory or in practice. Examples abound. For one, let's say you are a tenant of
an apartment, and the carpet needs replacing. Is that your responsibility, or
the landlord's? On the one hand, if you took reasonable care of the carpet, but
had lived there for 10 years and it just wore out, then normally common law
would say that is the landlord's responsibility; ordinary wear and tear is to
be anticipated, and he has a duty to provide you with a livable apartment. But
if it needs replacing because you were doing something forbidden by your lease,
or did some other negligent act (such as, dropping a cigarette) that turned an
acceptable-but-slightly-worn carpet overnight into a flame-scarred mess, then
it's the tenant's responsibility.

How about an even simpler, automotive example: your car has tires. The tires
wear out over the course of several years. That's normal and expected. If you
lend your car to a friend, it may be reasonable to expect he would pay you to
replace the gas he used for his trip (or refill the tank himself), but most
people would not expect that friend to pay a pro rata share of the wear and
tear on the tires based on their anticipated useful life. However, if your
friend negligently backed up over one of those "one way only" sharp pointy
thingies they put at the exits of many parking lots, and thereby punctured a
couple of your tires, it would be reasonable to expect him to buy you new ones,
even if the old ones did have a bit of wear and tear on them already.

> There's no real repair,

If there's no repair needed -- just pop the old hose back "on" the breakaway
fitting, without even needing any new gaskets or O-rings to form a safe seal --
then there's no "damage," is there? Problem solved. But I'll bet dollars to
donuts that in fact the gas station owner has to _at_least_ pay for a service
call by a properly trained / licensed gas-pump repair technician, given the
safety risks of an improperly installed gas hose and the fact that retail
gasoline sales is a regulated industry. So, even if there's no _other_ damage
found, the customer would be liable to pay for the cost of that inspection and
re-installation.

> and in
> fact pump owner has already paid for this accident by (1) buying the pump
> with this feature,

Um, no. The breakaway-hose feature is NOT designed primarily to prevent damage
to the _hose_ itself. It's designed to prevent a damaged hose from allowing
gasoline to spew at a high rate onto the tarmac while the pump may still be
operating, where the gas could easily cause a fire or explosion and create a
much greater risk of injury or death or consequential property damage (other
than to the hose itself) than is likely with the breakaway design.

Even if that _were_ the main reason for the design, it merely _minimizes_ the
damage, it does not necessarily _prevent_ any damage at all. As noted above, if
there's no actual damage, there's no customer liability. No harm, no foul. But
if there _is_ any damage, why on earth would you think that the merchant's
foresight, to have installed a system that minimizes the amount of damage that
_does_ occur, would thereby make the _merchant_, not the customer, the one
liable to pay for the smaller amount of damage that does occur as a result of a
customer's negligence? The merchant has done everything he could to mitigate
the damage, but if it still occurs, it's the customer's fault.

> which probably cost more than the one without it,

Yes it does, but why does that have anything to do with the price of eggs?

The law, in that jurisdiction, may _require_ breakaway hoses (just as it may
require vapor-recovery nozzles, or automatic-shutoff-when-full nozzles, or many
other features on gas pumps) and so it's not as though the gas station owner
had any choice of what kind of hose to buy.

> and (2) ordering the spare in advance.

Um, no, again. Ordering a spare in advance does not mean the customer gets a
free ride because the merchant "already has a spare."

What it means is that the compensable damage includes _replacing_the_spare_
that the merchant had to use to restore the broken hose, so that the merchant
is left in no worse a condition than he was before the customer's negligence
occurred.

It would be absurd if the law actually operated the way you seem to assume.
Let's say you crash into, and cause a "total loss" to, a car belonging to
someone else. But, it turns out, that fellow, a bachelor and budding collector,
owned two cars, and of course he could only drive one of them at a time. Do you
get off the hook, because "he already had another car," and didn't really need
two cars? Of course not.

Or, let's say your negligence causes a physical injury to somebody, and he
needs medical treatment. The cost of that treatment is part of the "damages"
you would owe your victim, right? That means, you (or your liability insurance)
have to pay for his doctors and hospital bills. But, oops! The victim, as luck
would have it, already has health insurance, which paid for his visits! Or, he
already has a bank account with a positive balance, and he paid for the doctors
himself. Yay, I'm off the hook! Right?

Wrong. In all of these cases, as in the broken-gas-hose example, the law does
not consider it fair for the _wrongdoer_ to be the one who benefits (via a
reduction in the damages he would otherwise owe) by reason of the _victim's_
foresight in obtaining his own "first party" insurance to cover a loss, or the
fact that the victim has enough resources in reserve to initially pay for the
loss himself, or the fact that the victim has some third party (such as a
family member, or an employer) willing to pay for all or part of those losses
(such as, an employer continuing to pay wages to an employee out on sick leave
due to an injury). Such payments are referred to as "collateral sources" and in
most instances, would not be relevant to a determination of the total amount of
damage caused by a tort, nor would they set off or reduce the amount the
tortfeasor (wrongdoer) owes his victim for such loss. Thus, in the injury case,
the wrongdoer would owe the _total_ retail amount of the doctor and hospital
bills (not counting any insurance copays, reduced billings due to an insurance
agreement, etc.) and the _total_ value of the wages the victim would have
earned while he was off work (even if the employer continued to pay his wages
during that time), as well as a fair amount to cover the victim's pain and
suffering.

In the real world, both the gas station, and the driver, would normally have
insurance. An accident such as the one being discussed in this thread would
initially kick in the gas station's "first party" property damage insurance,
and the gas station's insurer would then investigate and (if the loss is
determined to be a covered event) pay for the damage under the gas station's
"first party" coverage for _any_ loss or damage to the gas station property,
regardless of whether or not it was negligently caused. The gas station's
insurer would also investigate whether they thought the car driver had acted
negligently to cause the damage. If so, they would make demand upon the car
owner's "third party" auto liability insurance coverage, which is the part of
an auto policy that is supposed to pay for losses which are caused to some
third party (that is, someone other than the policyholder or the insurer) by
some negligent act in the operation or use of that vehicle. This process is
called "subrogation," meaning, the gas station's insurer "steps into the shoes"
of the gas station owner after paying for the damage, to collect against the
negligent party (the car driver) who is, in fairness, the one ultimately
responsible for the damage.

If the car driver and car owner did not have any liability insurance, then the
gas station's first-party insurer is still likely to come after them to pay for
the damage. And it will have to come out of the driver's own pocket.

Stuart A. Bronstein

unread,

Feb 21, 2014, 10:37:23 PM2/21/14

to

Henry Wang <hw...@is.invalid> wrote:
> Moses wrote:
>
>> If you damage someone else's property you are responsible for
>> repairing the damage.
>
> So, if a neighbor invites the entire block in for a party at
> her house, and someone spills a beer on the carpet, you are
> responsible for the cleanup/replacement costs of that carpet?

Depends on how/why the beer was spilled. If the guest was negligent
and that negligence caused the spill, then yes, the guest is
technically liable. Will the host ask for payment? Perhaps not.
But that has nothing to do with legal liability.

> Clearly the owner of the gas station, and the owner of the
> porcelain shop, bear the responsibility for inviting people
> to their venue.

But they don't bear the responsibility for someone else's negligence
that causes damage.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Barry Gold

unread,

Feb 22, 2014, 9:53:28 AM2/22/14

to

On 2/20/2014 4:19 PM, Henry Wang wrote:
> So, if a neighbor invites the entire block in for a party at
> her house, and someone spills a beer on the carpet, you are
> responsible for the cleanup/replacement costs of that carpet?

If "you" is the person who spills the beer, it depends. Were you
negligent? If you were, you are responsible. If not, not.

A few examples:

1. The carpet is loose. Previous people have caused it to bunch up in
one area, but due to poor lighting the "bump" is not visible. You trip
over the bump and spill your beer.
You are not responsible. Further, if you get injured, the homeowner
is responsible for not having fixed the carpet (if he knew about it) -
and for also failing to remedy the bad lighting.

2. The carpet is loose and bunched up. The lighting is adequate, but
you didn't notice it due to being (a) involved in conversation with
another guest or (b) drunk.

In 2(a), a judge or jury would have to decide whether the "reasonably
prudent person" would have noticed the bump. If so, you are
responsible. If not, not. Also, the damages would be diminished in
states that use Comparative Negligence because of the homeowner's
failure to fix it. In a pure Contributory Negligence state, you would
not be liable. In a Last Clear Chance state, you _might_ be liable: you
had the opportunity to notice the bump and step over/around it.

In 2(b), if the homeowner has served you booze after you were visibly
drunk, you would not be responsible (in Contributory Negligence or Last
Clear Chance states) or would be partly responsible (in Comparative
Negligence states).

As with everything else, it all depends on the facts.

Mike Anderson

unread,

Feb 25, 2014, 9:30:50 AM2/25/14

to

On 2/21/2014 3:43 PM, Mike Jacobs wrote:
> If the _original_ breakaway hose can just be popped right back on, that's not
> "damage" -- other than the labor time involved for re-installing it, which does
> count as part of legally compensable "damages."

You're the lawyer here and not me but it would seem to me that such
WOULD count. If my car was wrecked, I could recover not only the cost
for the replacement parts but also the cost for the body shop's labor
(even if I decided to do the work myself, I could recover what the going
rate would be.) So why couldn't I recover the labor costs to put the
hose back on?

Yes, the cost would be small (2 mins or so labor even at $50/hour is
still negligible) but it still seems it would be recoverable IF I was
stubborn enough to push the issue (of course it wouldn't be worth even
small claims court but let's just say I'm the type to do things for the
sheer principle.) Or are you saying this would be one of those things
where the court would say "THAT tiny amount? Quit wasting our time and
get the *bleep* out of here!"?

Gordon Burditt

unread,

Feb 25, 2014, 10:14:52 PM2/25/14

to

> DD> Q: What is the legal liability to a consumer for breaking a gas pump?
>
> DD> Saw this sign on the gas pump today:
> DD> http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/12448571815_987592d487_o.gif
> DD> Which said, verbatim:
> DD> "Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away
> DD> with nozzle."
>
> DD> Asked the attendant, who explained that people do it all the
> DD> time. He said the nozzle is designed to break away, when people
> DD> forget to remove it before driving off.

Gasoline is flammable, the fumes may explode, it's poisonous, toxic
(especially if it gets in the water supply) and possibly carcinogenic.
Cleaning it up isn't cheap.

> If the nozzle is _designed_ to break away,
> then the only damage is replacing
> it with the spare one,

No, you have to replace the spare. That includes, at a minimum,
the *current* cost of the spare (even if the spare cost 30% less 6
years ago when it was purchased), sales tax, and shipping. Since
gasoline is an environmental hazard, you can expect that repairing
the hose will have to be done by someone certified to do so, and
they'll charge a bunch for it. That may also require re-inspection
of the pump and you have to pay for that also. They aren't going
to let the station owner fix a "small leak" with duct tape as a
permanent fix. You also have to pay for the spilled gasoline that
came out of the pump, and clean up the spill.

You can be sure that if people who drive off with the nozzle in
their tank don't have to pay to replace the spare because the station
already has one, no gas station would have one. You should be
thankful for that spare: it saves you a bunch of cost while the
pump would be out of service.

The hose might break away and in the process knock some pedestrians
off their feet and into traffic. You might end up paying for medical
care for several pedestrians who now have no arms or legs for the
rest of their lives. Some of them might be children. Or it could
just put large dents in all the cars parked along the road. That
could also get pretty expensive.

You may have to reimburse the station for time spent reporting the
spill to local, state, and federal authorities (assuming it's in
the USA). You may have to spend some of your own time reporting a
spill from your tank, should the hose manage to rip the feed pipe
from your tank and you spill a bunch from your tank (and not
necessarily at the station). Breakaway hoses should prevent this.

You may have to pay to clean up the spill. If the town calls out
the fire department to do it, you may have to pay for their time.
This can get really expensive if the spill makes its way into water
runoff. The hose design is supposed to limit the amount of the
spill but I don't think this can be guaranteed. Even cleaning up
two gallons could require a lot of effort. And if the station has
to shut down while that is done (after all, letting cars on the
property could cause a spark that ignites it), you pay for the lost
profit.

I recall one spill where some heating oil company put heating oil
into a pipe into someone's basement that no longer had a tank because
they had converted to some other heating method. The pipe had been
sealed off properly for the situation, but the fool delivering to
the wrong address "fixed" the problem. The result: the EPA
determined that they had to dig up soil down something like 100
feet, so the heating company ended up paying for a half-dozen houses,
their demolition, the land they were on, and moving expenses for
the occupants, plus moving tons of earth to a toxic waste dump.
Some of the occupants had medical expenses. Some of the heating
oil hit the sewage processing plant, which had to be shut down for
a month, requiring evacuation of half the city for a month. It
almost made the EPA fines look cheap. That's a much larger spill
than what you'd get from a breakaway hose. I hope.

> and it can be argued that it's part of the operating
> the pump,

You can argue it, but it won't get you off the hook.

> however occasional and unfortunate. There's no real repair, and in

There most certainly is a real repair. At a minimum, replace the
spare (including tax, shipping, and labor for installation) and
clean up the spill.

> fact pump owner has already paid for this accident by (1) buying the pump
> with this feature, which probably cost more than the one without it, and (2)
> ordering the spare in advance.

No, you don't get to profit from that.

In the case of storm damage, homeowners are supposed to mitigate
damages to the extent possible. If that costs money (such as
boarding up the house before the hurricane hits, putting plastic
over the now-ripped-off roof to prevent further rain damage,
evacuating the residents elsewhere, placing sandbags to keep flooding
from reaching the house, etc.), insurance companies have to pay for
these measures if a reasonable person would consider them prudent
(but moving the entire house to Europe for the hurricane season
isn't). That even includes a situation where the hurricane doesn't
hit your area - but the forecasts expected it to.

A gas station also should mitigate damages. Have spares for various
parts needed to keep the business going (that might include pump
parts, credit card readers, an inventory of gasoline, and maybe
even employees). Hit the "Emergency Stop" button rather than watch
the guy drive off with the nozzle in his tank while laughing. Shut
down the station until the spill is cleaned up and the fire hazard
is removed. These measures do not remove responsibility from the
person causing the damage to pay for the damage that actually
happened.

micky

unread,

Feb 24, 2014, 11:32:16 PM2/24/14

to

On Fri, 21 Feb 2014 00:19:01 +0000 (UTC), Henry Wang <hw...@is.invalid>
wrote:

>On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 11:58:50 -0800, Moses wrote:
>
>> If you damage someone else's property you are responsible for
>> repairing the damage.
>
>So, if a neighbor invites the entire block in for a party at
>her house, and someone spills a beer on the carpet, you are
>responsible for the cleanup/replacement costs of that carpet?

It may sound like a mistake, or even outrageous, to call the invitee
responsible, but most of that is because your analogy is a bad one.

You mention replacement cost at the same level as cleanup costs. But
for most people it's a mistake or even outrageous to replace carpet just
because a beer has been spilled on it. IIRC, beer doesn't stain and it
doesn't even smell after a day or two, even without cleaning it up and
of course one beer wouldn't wet more than 16 square feet. Probably less.

If the owners smelled beer or saw a stain, they could clean the area
with a bucket, a cleaner, and a brush; rent a carpet cleaner; or pay
someone to clean the whole room for a modest amount. All but maybe
the last one would be much cheaper than the cost of a new pump handle
I'm sure.

In addition, mentioning "the entire block" gives the image of a room
full of people bumping into each other, so it's not clear if the one
(negligently?) holding the beer is responsible or someone who
negligently bumps into him, or both. Figuring out who is responsible
might be a difficult problem here, but it's not hard to tell who drove
out of the gas station with the pump nozzle still in his car.

He might flee and not get caught but the same is true of the beer
spiller, and it's a separate issue.

How about, your neighbor invites 7 other neigbbors to her house for a
party. Two are in the back yard, two are on the patio, two are in the
living room, and you are in the kitchen. You, interfered with by no one
and nothing, negligently knock a 100 dollar crystal pitcher, that was
being used to serve juice, off the kitchen counter and it breaks. Do
you think you're responsible? Or your hostess, who wasn't in the room?

>Clearly the owner of the gas station, and the owner of the
>porcelain shop, bear the responsibility for inviting people
>to their venue.

It's not clear to me.

Stuart A. Bronstein

unread,

Feb 26, 2014, 7:23:20 PM2/26/14

to

Mike Anderson <prabb...@gmail.com.com> wrote:
> Mike Jacobs wrote:

>> If the _original_ breakaway hose can just be popped right back
>> on, that's not "damage" -- other than the labor time involved
>> for re-installing it, which does count as part of legally
>> compensable "damages."
>
> You're the lawyer here and not me but it would seem to me that
> such WOULD count. If my car was wrecked, I could recover not
> only the cost for the replacement parts but also the cost for
> the body shop's labor (even if I decided to do the work myself,
> I could recover what the going rate would be.) So why couldn't I
> recover the labor costs to put the hose back on?

You could. But if it's a break-away setup, the labor to put it
back on would be to snap it back in place. If a reasonable charge
is $60 an hour, the cost to do that would be perhaps 25 cents.

> Yes, the cost would be small (2 mins or so labor even at
> $50/hour is still negligible) but it still seems it would be
> recoverable IF I was stubborn enough to push the issue (of
> course it wouldn't be worth even small claims court but let's
> just say I'm the type to do things for the sheer principle.) Or
> are you saying this would be one of those things where the court
> would say "THAT tiny amount? Quit wasting our time and get the
> *bleep* out of here!"?

Google "de minimis non curat lex".

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Mike Jacobs

unread,

Feb 27, 2014, 1:00:15 PM2/27/14

to

On Tuesday, February 25, 2014 9:30:50 AM UTC-5, Mike Anderson wrote:
> On 2/21/2014 3:43 PM, Mike Jacobs wrote:
>
> > If the _original_ breakaway hose can just be popped right back on, that's not
> > "damage" -- other than the labor time involved for re-installing it, which does
> > count as part of legally compensable "damages."

> You're the lawyer here and not me but it would seem to me that such
> WOULD count.

Um, yeah. That's what _I_ said too. Read the sentence of mine that you quoted,
above, again. I agree that it DOES count.

> If my car was wrecked, I could recover not only the cost
> for the replacement parts but also the cost for the body shop's labor
> (even if I decided to do the work myself, I could recover what the going
> rate would be.)

Sure.

> So why couldn't I recover the labor costs to put the
> hose back on?

I dunno, you tell me. I say he CAN recover the labor costs. Apparently, you
think so too.

Did you ever get the feeling someone who completely misunderstood what you said
was trying to strenuously AGREE with you? 8*)

John F. Carr

unread,

Feb 26, 2014, 8:19:22 PM2/26/14

to

In article <pan.2014.02...@is.invalid>,

Danny D'Amico <da...@is.invalid> wrote:

>On the other hand, I'm sure driving away with the nozzle in the
>car is a dumb mistake, made by a consumer who should know better.
>

>But, my question is, if it happens, by accident, do they really
>force the innocent (but clumsy) customer to pay repair costs?

Yes and no. Yes, the other responses are right to say the customer
is liable.

No, the customer doesn't have to pay because he has car insurance.

In my state the standard car insurance policy covers "an unexpected,
unintended event that causes bodily injury or property damage arising
out of the ownership, maintenance or use of an auto." This includes
much more than a crash.

Drive offs are common. Repairs are cheap. It's a routine claim.

New York Times has a useful article:
<http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/the-cost-of-driving-away-with-the-gas-pump/>

--
John Carr (j...@mit.edu)

Danny D.

unread,

Feb 27, 2014, 8:59:12 PM2/27/14

to

On Thu, 27 Feb 2014 01:19:22 +0000, John F. Carr wrote:

> New York Times has a useful article:
> <http://bucks.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/11/10/the-cost-of-driving-away-with-the-gas-pump/>

That was an interesting New York Times article.

I'd wager though, that there has NEVER been such a claim in the neighboring
state of New Jersey, simply because New Jersey law prevents such accidents
from occurring in the first place simply by the gas station owner providing
better service to their customers (at the lowest prices in the nation besides).

dpb

unread,

Feb 28, 2014, 1:56:12 PM2/28/14

to

On 2/27/2014 7:59 PM, Danny D. wrote:
...

> I'd wager though, that there has NEVER been such a claim in the neighboring
> state of New Jersey, simply because New Jersey law prevents such accidents
> from occurring in the first place simply by the gas station owner providing
> better service to their customers (at the lowest prices in the nation besides).

Prices not lowest in the nation albeit in lower third. That, however,
is more by dint of lower tax rate rather than owing to elimination of
"u-pump". OR is the other that I know of otomh and is somewhat more
yellow than NJ on price but their gas tax is 48/gal as compared to 33
for NJ (rounded nearest penny).

<http://www.gasbuddy.com/gb_gastemperaturemap.aspx>
<http://www.bankrate.com/finance/taxes/gas-taxes-by-state.aspx>

As probably expected, TX and the lower Gulf states tend to be the lowest
cost region. NJ appears to be on a par roughly with VA and some of the
SW states (NM, AZ) in an overall color-appearance comparison.

--

Mike Anderson

unread,

Mar 1, 2014, 11:01:05 AM3/1/14

to

On 2/27/2014 1:00 PM, Mike Jacobs wrote:
> Did you ever get the feeling someone who completely misunderstood what you said
> was trying to strenuously AGREE with you? 8*)

OK, yeah, guilty of misreading/reading too fast/reading under the
influence (of a head cold.) :(

unread,

Mar 5, 2014, 8:28:07 PM3/5/14

to

"Liam O'Connor" <liamo...@example.com> wrote:

Exactly. Here in San Francisco it's hard to find a place that's
not self-serve. But we have some of the highest costs in the
nation.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

patrice....@gmail.com

unread,

Oct 24, 2018, 7:24:04 PM10/24/18

to

I just drove away at a station with the nozzle still attached and the nozzle attaching the hose to the pump detached. The whole thing, including the extra "wire" securing it (I think that's what it was) was lying on the ground. I stopped immediately. I took a photo. I went in to the gas station and they took my info. I said I would probably prefer to pay out of pocket but they took insurance info too.
A week later I got an email from the owner stating the charges were $958.32!!!! I called and said that I knew from others that had done this that a charge of less than $200 was common, or in one case when a hose was involved as well the fee (at same brand station) was $450.
The owner insisted that he had to replace every single piece because otherrwise it wouldn't pass monthly inspection and would cost $500 more for that.
I did negotiate 10% off, but I still feel ripped off.
Do you know which state agency might regulate this or if I have any way to find out what is acceptable?

On Monday, February 10, 2014 at 7:12:52 PM UTC-8, Danny D'Amico wrote:
> Q: What is the legal liability to a consumer for breaking a gas pump?
>

> Saw this sign on the gas pump today:

> http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5503/12448571815_987592d487_o.gif
> Which said, verbatim:

> "Customer responsible for damage caused by driving away

> with nozzle."

>
> Asked the attendant, who explained that people do it all the

> time. He said the nozzle is designed to break away, when people

> forget to remove it before driving off.
>

> My legal question is who is responsible, legally, if I
> *accidentally* drive away and the pump handle breaks away
> at the engineered-in break-away point?
>
> On the one hand, it seems, to me, a layman, that accidents that
> are clearly foreseeable by the business owner, are merely the cost of
> doing business (e.g., breakage in a China shop is inevitable).

Stuart O. Bronstein

unread,

Oct 25, 2018, 1:30:44 AM10/25/18

to

patrice....@gmail.com wrote:

> I just drove away at a station with the nozzle still attached and
> the nozzle attaching the hose to the pump detached. The whole
> thing, including the extra "wire" securing it (I think that's what
> it was) was lying on the ground. I stopped immediately. I took a
> photo. I went in to the gas station and they took my info. I said
> I would probably prefer to pay out of pocket but they took
> insurance info too. A week later I got an email from the owner
> stating the charges were $958.32!!!! I called and said that I
> knew from others that had done this that a charge of less than
> $200 was common, or in one case when a hose was involved as well
> the fee (at same brand station) was $450. The owner insisted that
> he had to replace every single piece because otherrwise it
> wouldn't pass monthly inspection and would cost $500 more for
> that. I did negotiate 10% off, but I still feel ripped off.
> Do you know which state agency might regulate this or if I have
> any way to find out what is acceptable?

You don't say what state you live in. My state has a Department of
Consumer Affairs - that's who I'd call first. Another option, if
your local district attorney's office has a consumer fraud unit, to
call them.

--
Stu
http://DownToEarthLawyer.com

Barry Gold

unread,

Oct 25, 2018, 1:53:24 PM10/25/18

to

On 10/24/2018 3:24 PM, patrice....@gmail.com wrote:
> I just drove away at a station with the nozzle still attached and the nozzle attaching the hose to the pump detached. The whole thing, including the extra "wire" securing it (I think that's what it was) was lying on the ground. I stopped immediately. I took a photo. I went in to the gas station and they took my info. I said I would probably prefer to pay out of pocket but they took insurance info too.
> A week later I got an email from the owner stating the charges were $958.32!!!! I called and said that I knew from others that had done this that a charge of less than $200 was common, or in one case when a hose was involved as well the fee (at same brand station) was $450.
> The owner insisted that he had to replace every single piece because otherrwise it wouldn't pass monthly inspection and would cost $500 more for that.
> I did negotiate 10% off, but I still feel ripped off.
> Do you know which state agency might regulate this or if I have any way to find out what is acceptable?

1. You were negligent. Look up negligence in Wikipedia.

2. This is why you carry liability insurance. If you had let your
insurance company negotiate with the gas station, they would have known
what a fair price was. And you wouldn't have had to pay anything out of
pocket, although your premiums would probably have gone up a little.

--
I do so have a memory. It's backed up on DVD... somewhere...