The driver is legally responsible for the proper operation of the vehicle. No one else is driving. They are responsible for their own choice to get into a car with an impaired driver, but not responsible for the driver’s driving.
On the other hand, due to many states dram shop acts bars that serve obviously drunk patrons can be held liable for damages caused by their patrons. Some states either have or are considering laws that make it mandatory for bars to hold liability insurance against such accidents.
Personally, I find this very troubling. It is often a judgment call as to whether the person is “visibly” drunk or “obviously” drunk. One person’s obvious is another’s not so obvious. Then there’s the issue of forcing bars to act as their brother’s keeper. Short of restraining the drunk person, what can they do? People come into the bar visible drunk, and the bar can refuse to serve them, but that doesn’t stop the drunk from driving.
The laws are designed to counteract the moral hazard of profit. Some bartenders think that big tips are more important than the danger to other people’s lives that drunk drivers pose. So these laws are designed to counteract the irresponsibility caused by greed.
It is true that we have such regulations to hold back the excesses of greed in other areas of the economy, such as finance and energy sales. The events of the last year show that reducing regulation can lead to serious misbehavior, resulting from a lack of ethical beliefs.
You could reasonably, I suppose, extend this “big brother” responsibility to other patrons of a bar, or to passengers in a car. This troubles me, as I say. I guess it is a slightly different rationale than the dram acts rely on. The dram acts hold those who serve drinks to obviously drunk patrons responsible for the patron’s behavior. You are talking about extending this responsibility to other people close to the drunk. I wonder where it stops? Is anyone who is near the drunk responsible for keeping them from driving or only those who share the ride? Why not hold other patrons in the bar responsible, if the bar fails in its duty? Hell, why not hold all of society responsible for allowing alcohol to be served legally?
I’m a great believer in having communities be responsible for the health and well-being of everyone in that community. I believe in charity and social programs designed to help people help themselves. But should we force others with drinking problems to get help? Lock them up in detox programs? If cost were no object (and of course it is an object), would this be an effective thing to do?
Like I say, these ideas are troubling. I do believe we are somewhat responsible for taking care of our fellow human beings, but I also believe that responsibility has to stop somewhere. Where we draw the line is a tricky thing.
Composing members:
0
