Should bar owners who serve alcohol to customers knowing they are driving be liable for prosecution if the customer is involved in a traffic accident? Should passengers in cars driven by drunk drivers be also liable for prosecution?
Have Your Say ( 39 )
Order by Time Order by Popularity
39 Comments
Login to comment
0
smartacus
I would say no to the first question and yes to the second. Bar owners should not be responsible for their customers. They are in business to serve drinks. As for passengers, I think they have a bit more responsibility.
Having said that, though, it is not always easy to convince someone they are too drunk to drive. I tried it once with a friend and he got very belligerent and indicated he was OK, even though I knew he had consumed more than a few beers. The only way I would have got the car keys from him would have been through a fight.
0
Spidey
A limited "Yes" to the first question. And a down right "No" to the second. I am responsible for me, myself and I...period. Which means you are responsible for you, yourself and you...period. We do what we can to intervene and help somebody out but in no way am I responsible for the choices THEY make.
S
0
wargalley20011
I used to be a late night convience store clerk. The store was located between two bars. I refused to sell to anyone that was sloppy drunk, or thier I.D. didn't look right. People got mad, yelled, and buisness was slow at night. My point is the person who serves you should be responsible, not the owner. Course, it might be different if you have drunk Yakuza in a bar. You'll be damned if you did, or damned if you don't serve them.
No the passengers shouldn't be charged for the drivers mistakes. At a golf course the member is responsible for thier guest mistakes, right?
0
techall
wargalley20011:
You did this in Japan ? Gutsy move, good on ya. I'm surprised the Convenie manager didn't over rule you, You know japaj , it's all about the bottom line.
0
gyouza
Dear Spidey. I think what you are saying to the second question is that if the driver hits a wall and you get injured then you made the decision to be in the car so you are responsible. I think that is OK, but what if the same driver with you as a passenger ploughs into a group of people and kills 4-5 of them? If you knew that driver was drunk, shouldn't you have stopped them from driving? If you make the choice to be in the car with them, I would say you are just as guilty.
As for bar owners, if they KNOW the customer is driving, then same applies, they should act in some way. There shouldn't be an automatic link (and I don't believe that there is one yet) between the incident and the bar. That would be unfair.
0
Spidey
I think that is OK, but what if the same driver with you as a passenger ploughs into a group of people and kills 4-5 of them? If you knew that driver was drunk, shouldn't you have stopped them from driving?
OK. If the driver is hell bent on driving, what is a person to do? Steal their keys? Physically restrain them? Risk being injured incase said drunk decides to resist? I'm all for acting responsibly and all that but where do we draw the line? Am I to break the law in order to prevent someone from breaking it themselves?
S
0
Naruki_Oni
Agree with Spidey.
Perhaps the problem for me is that I have NEVER gotten so drunk I couldn't think. I've gotten drunk enough to lose my lunch on many occasions, but my brain has always functioned well enough that I would take responsibility for my actions (if not my reactions).
So maybe it's me: I am unable to see how others can be so completely drunk that they are not able to think, yet are able to think enough to drive a car.
And, really, I think if there are people like that, then they should not be driving a car sober.
0
eze666
hell no to both! this world is getting worse and worse for seeking to lay the blame elsewhere - if i get drunk and cause a crash, then it's MY fault, not the bar's, not my friends', not the tv show that made drunk driving seem cool, not kurt cobain's... etc. people need to grow up and take responsibility for their own actions.
0
Azrael
Actually, stealing their keys would be a good move. They'd be forced to take a cab, and next morning you can return the keys - of course this works best if the drunken one is someone you actually care about, your best friend, significant other, your parent or sibling. If they are -that- drunk, would they notice anyway? I prefer to have a fight with a living one that mourn them later. Or be asked for bail money.
As for the original questions, yes to both. One for omission and the other for complicity.
0
williamsmith
Actually, when drunk driving was legal there were a lot less DUI arrests.
0
thundercat
Q 1) Yes
Q 2) Yes
I can easily see how these people would be considered accessories to a crime... I always find it interesting that some people will argue that point.
0
Nessie
Even when "me" and "myself" are drunk, "I" don't drive -- even if "I" is stone cold sober.
0
tzvete
Everyone should be responsible for his/her own action!
0
Okinawamike
So, where are these bars that have a parking lot? 9 times out of 10, the bar owner does not know you are driving, even in Okinawa, were there are no trains. The clubs on base have parking lots and never once was I asked "are you driving" before being served a beer. You chose to drive after a drink, you’re responsible.
Next question: If I carried a "passenger" to her car, she is out cold, drive off and receive a DUI, is she also liable for my actions? She's in the car also.
Point is, every case is different, but the bottom line is you’re responsible for your own actions.
0
memyselfI
Yes, but bar owners know who has a car who doesn't. But bar owners really care about one thing "the money". Not who drank 9 shots of whiskey. Who drank 10 shots of saki !!!
0
YadotNapaj
(1.) Yes, if the patron appears to be visually intoxicated, otherwise no. Owners are also vicariously liable for their employees as well, but only in a civil court and not criminal.
(2.) No, neither, in a civil court nor a criminal court, unless the passenger were a parent, or a driving school instructor, and they had knowledge that the driver was intoxicated. They yes to both civil and criminal.
0
YangYong
Yes, if the bar owner knows the customer will leave and drive a vehicle drunk.
Yes. You have a responsibility to prevent the preventable. As written many times, don't get in the vehicle, take the keys, call the police, disable the vehicle. All of which I've done to people I thought were sensible, mature, community minded adults.
0
mareo2
Yes to both, I believe that the person selling the sake, and the passenger, hold some responsability. Maybe we dont like it, maybe we think that is bothersome, maybe we think that is to much for so small thing, but if someone die, is going to be to late for say I am sorry that I dont stooped him.
0
gyouza
You serious? You call the Police. If you see any crime in progress you (should) report it to the Police.
I sincerely hope that you never lose a family member or friend due to the actions of a drunk driver. If you do and if there were people around who could have stopped that person from driving but said the "Me, Myself, I" line then you would probably be pretty tazzed off.
Somehow, people think it is a right to drive whilst intoxicated. Why?
0
Triple888
In a free society (as oppose to a nanny one) the individual is responsible all their own actions. The responsibility of the bar owner stops as soon as he does what he's suppose to do: by serving drinks under demand from the paying customer. If the customer then ends up causing an accident it's their problem. So, NO, the bar owners should not be prosecuted for serving drinks!
Also, NO to the second question! If I knew my driver were drunk I wouldn't want to climb into their cars in the first place. Adults are not kids, again, they should be responsible for looking after themselves.
0
jonobugs
This is a very tricky question since there are so many different levels to it. First of all, I think the first thing to take note is that people should be responsible for their actions. Putting the onus on bar staff and owners is really not a fair deal, but there should be some level of responsibility for people who deal with these types of legal drugs. The way things are currently, it's not feasible. There needs to be some sort of check and balance going on otherwise you're suggesting that bar owners (and the like) need to know whether or not their clientele are a) sober enough to drive and b) actually have a car. What if they ask them and they just lie. Are they still responsible? How can anyone even know any of this information about their customers unless they question them about it. What about bars and pubs that are really busy. Do they have to keep tabs on every customer they serve? Is that even possible?
Also, concerning the passengers, it's just not feasible. First, it's easy to see that when someone is so drunk they can barely walk that they shouldn't be driving. But there is no real way to determine how intoxicated some people are just by looking at them. Even police need to use a breathalyzer to determine how intoxicated someone is. So, how can a passenger (who may be drunk themselves) be held responsible for those types of decisions.
There is also a lot of grey area in this question. What about minors? Are they responsible for when their elders drive drunk? Or what about someone who is a of a lower status (ie employer and boss). There need to be more options available before there is a blanket of accusations being brought down. Like what actions are considered to be a minimum before they are not held responsible.
Just to be clear, I DO not condone drinking and driving on any level. I don't approve of anyone doing that, and I think that reasonable measures should be taken when someone knowingly drinks and drives after they have been asked to stop. Getting into fights, putting yourself or someone else in danger are not reasonable.
I think that for too long drunk driving has been an excuse for accidents when it should actually then be considered criminal. Let's put the blame where it belongs, however, on the person(s) doing the actions. It's ridiculous to put that kind of responsibility on young staff members who probably make 1000 yen an hour. They probably have neither the experience nor judgment to know how to deal with those situations. Of course they should be educated on what to do in these situations, and perhaps that can be some sort of first step. Maybe pass a by-law that all establishments that serve liquor go through some sort of training to deal with those situations.
As for making passengers responsible, I think question needs to be more clear as it's just too vague the way it's posted.
0
romulus3
thats all I read of your long post but it was enough to convince me.
0
kokuryu
No to both. But I think they should have breath tests available so people can see if they are legally drunk or not before driving. The passengers may be drunker than the person driving, so they may not even know - its stupid to hold the passengers liable.
0
Mato99
Violent Knife crime seems to be on the rise. Are we going to start holding the hardware stores responsible for selling knives? For me, bottom line is. If you drive it's your ass. If you're in a car with someone who is wasted behind the wheel you should have the guts to get out of the car, and hopefully convince your friend to find a different way home too! The absolute only way I could see holding a Venue responsible is if they were serving to underage guests who then went driving, which is illegal anyways.
0
gyouza
People are focusing on the wrong side of this issue. More worried about being casually stoped and arrested for being a passenger when the driver is drunk. As far as I know, only people who have been involved in accidents have ben prosecuted for being a passenger of someone over the limit. I don't know of any case where a shop owner has been succsfully convicted yet, but my guess is that (for now) it will follow the same pattern. IF this detterent doesn't work, then expect it to filter to random testing and subsequent prosecutions. Those in Japan should get te message that there will be no tolerance.
There are a lot of contradictions where people are saying that they don't approve of drink/driving on any level but that there is no way you can tell how drunk a person really is. The law is saying that if you know the person has been drinking then you are going to be held responsible. If you were with the guy in a bar, and he was slipping off to get whiskey shots whilst you weren't looking, I don't think you'll be at risk. If you are out drinking with someone who might do this then in all honesty, you need different drinking buddies. For bar owners, here again, the law isn't trying to get to every bar owner who ever served a driver (knowingly or unknowingly) a drink. It is a deterrent. If you DID know, and in some cases it will be possible, then you are liable. Lets face it, if you did know someone was going to drive, and you did NOTHING about it, you must be as guilty as the driver. You have no idea what kind of accident that could happen. It isn't just Japan, the UK are also tryin to tighten up. If you want to research more, start here wit these stats - they might wake you up: http://www.brake.org.uk/index.php?p=237
0
GW
kinda sad here that some dont see any responsibility for others D&Driving when they know full well they have been drinking.
I live in the sticks a bit & have people over & insist the driver has no drinks, most just crash & we have no worries. Only once a friend said he wud crash & then around 11pm said he was going to drive home, I had to grab his keys & strongly insist he was making a huge mistake, he agreed & then tanked me in the morning over coffee.
There are way way too many drinking joints, ramenya etc that watch a car pull up 2,3,4 people get out & they all order beers & nobody does anything.
My wife sometimes works late & the road she has to drive has had several drunk driving accidents, worst claiming 4lives, of course the driver survived, so every night I have to hope their are no drunks around when she is driving, I damn well there are lots on the road because I see them weaving left & right, shame on you folks who sorta wanna look the other way
0
76waystofly
Good luck to any prosecutor that can prove beyond a reasonable doubt a bar owner has the uncanny ability to distinguish between which customers drive to his establishment, which ones are passengers, which ones hitchhike, and those who pogo stick their way to the saloon.
Liable for prosecution? I'm no grammar scholar, but the syntax of that phrase seems a bit off.
Unless the prosecutor can prove a passenger is an expert on the metabolic breakdown of ethyl alcohol in the variety of sizes of the human form, I doubt any prosecutor would waste his or her time on the prosecution of a passenger who may have entered the vehicle of a drunk driver; at the risk of providing convincing testimony to not knowing the level of the blood alcohol content of the driver beforehand.
0
Xeno23
Was a bartender for years in Southern California. Bartenders know who's drunk and who's not; also know who has a car, and who drove - it's pretty clear dealing with so many of the public on a daily basis like that. A good bartender is like Sherlock Holmes, my friends; it's part of the job. In California, both the bartender and establishment are liable in civil court, possibly criminal if injury results, but actual prosecution isn't all that common - not exactly sure why.
Had numerous professional training courses as a lead bartender and bar manager; psychology of drunkenness, physiology of drunkenness, chemistry of alcohol, state laws, responsibilities of purveyors, tactics and strategies for responsible bartending. Been in three DUI court cases and been thrown out of the jury by the defense every time; know too much. Bartending pros aren't just schleps slinging cocktails...
0
CaptDingleheimer
As a passenger riding with a driver who's been drinking, your only responsibility is to reach into the cooler in the back seat and get him a fresh beer so he can keep his eyes on the road.
0
Rudd
Definite qualified no to the first one. The comparison to a doctor giving out medicine they know will be harmful is bogus, because all medicine and alcohol can be both harmful or beneficial depending on the way the patient/customer ends up using it. If a doctor prescribes a month's worth of medicine to a patient with strict instructions to take 1 after a meal three times a day, but the patient decides to take the entire month's dose in one go, and subsequently dies in a pool of their own bile and vomit, the doctor cannot reasonably be held responsible. Likewise if a customer abuses their responsibilities by driving after consuming a certain amount of booze at a licensed establishment, then providing the bar owner was not breaking any laws or procedures (or "common sense" in the case of paralytic patrons) then it's unreasonable to hold them responsible for the customer's actions after they leave. The only fair way to implement some sort of responsibility is to instigate a procedure nationwide that if followed indemnifies the owner - for example whenever a customer or group of customers arrives, have them formally asked if any of them will be driving. Anybody that says they are will not be served anything with alcohol, and if they're seen drinking somebody else's alcohol they will be kicked out and their license plate will be reported to the police. And I can't see anything like that happening.
Second one, would have to depend on the circumstances. Knowing about something but doing nothing generally isn't a crime for a good reason, but if it can be demonstrated that the passenger in the car or anybody else for that matter (including the bar owner) had been overly persuasive in encouraging the driver to drink while fully aware he would be driving should certainly be prosecuted for incitement.
0
thundercat
Japan has a ZERO TOLERANCE law. As far as drunk driving is concerned here one drink is over the limit. Anyone arguing that we can't 'know exactly how drunk someone is' had better think long and hard about what zero tolerance actually means.
In countries where there are varying legal limits of intoxication I would argue 'no' to both questions... but assuming we are talking about Japan I stick with 'yes' to both.
0
outofmydepth
YES and YES. enough said. why would anyone risk having an accident or worse injuring or killing someone over a drink or more. it is just plain nuts in any country where there are cars, drink, drivers, pedestrians, etc. if you are going to drink, have a DD (desginated driver or stay where you are).
0
ptolemy
Only if 7-11, Family Mart, Ito Yokado, and the rest that sell alcohol are too. No difference if its a restaurant selling 10 beers to a bloke or gal at once or a store. What about all the good law abiding salarydrones sitting in their cars right in conbini parking lots downing a can then starting their car. Same as a restaurant to me.
0
DeepAir65
Yes to the first and depends on the second. If the passenger is too drunk as well then how can you hold them liable?
0
meiwaku
And I think the cops too!
0
nikoniko
you will have to hit the sellers in the pocketbooks on this one or things wont change -- if they are held responsible then they will start applying common sense to this issue
0
eze666
late response, but just checked back - i can't believe people think the bar is responsible... if you die of lung cancer is marlboro responsible? cirrhosis; is kirin to blame? maybe you get drunk and are a violent idiot and beat your wife to a pulp, then it's the bar's fault surely? what if you drink too much and don't drive, but get knocked over? sue the bar for serving a person they knew was going to be walking? people who can't take responsibility for their own actions (whether intoxicated/otherwise influenced or not) rile me soooooo much - man up a bit and admit you made the decision rather than passing the blame. pathetic idiots
Back to top