Drunk Driving Hypothetical

[Jolly_Penguin]

Andrew is drunk. Bob who is sober convinces Andrew to drive him home. Andrew gets behind the wheel. Andrew drives them into the back of Carl's car. Andrew, Bob, and Carl are all injured. Who is responsible for whose injuries?

Is Andrew responsible for Bob's injuries? Is he responsible for his own? Is he responsible fro Carl's?

Is Bob responsible for Andrew's injuries? Is he responsible for his own? Is he responsible for Carl's?

If both Andrew and Bob are responsible for Carl's injuries, how would you split their responsibility between them?

 

[ronburgundy]

Andrew is drunk. Bob who is sober convinces Andrew to drive him home. Andrew gets behind the wheel. Andrew drives them into the back of Carl's car. Andrew, Bob, and Carl are all injured. Who is responsible for whose injuries?

Is Andrew responsible for Bob's injuries? Is he responsible for his own? Is he responsible fro Carl's?

Is Bob responsible for Andrew's injuries? Is he responsible for his own? Is he responsible for Carl's?

If both Andrew and Bob are responsible for Carl's injuries, how would you split their responsibility between them?

The moral and legal responsibilities need to be separated, because they quite different. Bob's causal role was via speech rather than direct action. The law should have a very high bar for punishing speech, but speech is completely subject to moral judgment. In fact, I'd say that speech acts are where ethical and legal principles should diverge the most.

Confining this to only the moral responsibility, Bob definitely bears some responsibility if he should have reasonable known that Bob was incapacitated. One could even argue that Bod has the most moral responsibility since his decision making was not impaired by alcohol.
Of course, it get complicated by other unknowns, such as was Andrew going to drive anyway or did Bob impact that decision and how much did the extra distance and route due to taking Andrew home increase the odds of an accident?

One way to highlight Andrew's role is to modify the scenario to replace the alcohol with extreme fatigue. Imagine the two met for a dinner and Andrew knew Bob had been up for 48 hours and could see that Bob was nodding off during dinner. I'd argue that Andrew bears at least some responsibility and about the same as he would in the DUI case. Note that unlike legal responsibility, moral responsibility has no finite amount and thus the responsibility of one need not impact that of the other.
I would also argue that Bob is as morally responsible in the fatigue case as they DUI case, and that most of the extra outrage people attack to DUI stems from bullshit puritanical sentiments about getting drunk.

Another revealing comparison would be if Bob was on his cellphone. Bob's moral responsibility would be the same as in the DUI case, but Andrew would have very little because he wouldn't have know in advance that Bob would use his cellphone while driving.

 

[Horatio Parker]

You been hanging out in strip bars again?

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Good points!

Yes, as law currently stands, Andrew would be held 100% liable for Carl's and mostly for Bob's injuries. I am not sure I agree, but that is the law here in Ontario anyway.

I agree that both Bob and Andrew are responsible for Carl's injuries, though I am not sure how to split between them.

I think I would say that Bob is more responsible for Andrew's injuries than Andrew is responsible for Bob's.... Which is the opposite of Ontario's law.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

Legally, 100% Andrew.

I have a big problem with this, though.

I would say he's 0% responsible for Bob's--Bob knew the situation and convinced him to do something dangerous, thus he knowingly chose the risk.

I would say they share the blame for Carl's injuries but I'm not sure how to divide it.

 

[fast]

Andrew is drunk. Bob who is sober convinces Andrew to drive him home. Andrew gets behind the wheel. Andrew drives them into the back of Carl's car. Andrew, Bob, and Carl are all injured. Who is responsible for whose injuries?

Is Andrew responsible for Bob's injuries? Is he responsible for his own? Is he responsible fro Carl's?

Is Bob responsible for Andrew's injuries? Is he responsible for his own? Is he responsible for Carl's?

If both Andrew and Bob are responsible for Carl's injuries, how would you split their responsibility between them?

I'm going to take responsibility whether I'm Andrew, Bob, or Carl. See, I hold myself to a very high standard. If we must make a choice between whether the world is a safer place with me driving drunk or bob driving sober, to me, it's an absolute no brainer, as I am the epitome of awesomeness. Statistics are a reflection of the common man and have no place in a reasonable analysis. If I'm Andrew, I take full responsibility. In fact, from a legal perspective, I would be held accountable if such an incredibly freaky thing could happen to me with all my greatness. Andrew would likely place some blame on bob because had it not been for him, Andrew wouldn't be in the predicament. As for myself, I take full blame, as I should take the full blunt of repercussions, for I (if in bobs shoes) should know better.

If I'm bob, then there's no way I should be asking a drunk to drive me. If I'm the drunk, that's different, as I bring unparralled skills to the table, but knowing how stats would be a better predictor of the common man, then surely my pusuasion skills at least somewhat mitigate Andrews moral responsibility. Imagine if I'm bob (boyfriend to Andrews mother) and she learns that impressionable Andrew caved in to my pursuasion. She's gonna be highly upset with who she thinks is responsible, namely me, but even if common man bob convinces Andrew, both should know better, so we can expect the blame game to fly in multiple directions.

This brings me to carl. Most no one is going to fault carl. Well, some will, but no legs to stand on, I'm afraid; however, if I'm carl, blame myself I will. To understand why requires understanding just how great I am.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

This brings me to carl. Most no one is going to fault carl. Well, some will, but no legs to stand on, I'm afraid; however, if I'm carl, blame myself I will. To understand why requires understanding just how great I am.

Yeah. Carl is to blame. He shoulda known better than to go driving out where there are drunk drivers. In fact, Andrew and Bob should be compensated by Carl for injuring them.

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

Do people actually convince drunk people to drive? I've lived an apparently sheltered life.

I would also argue that Bob is as morally responsible in the fatigue case as they DUI case, and that most of the extra outrage people attack to DUI stems from bullshit puritanical sentiments about getting drunk.

A drunk person operating a 2000+ pound machine. You have issues with a drunk person operating an excavator on a construction site or do you think that is puritanical bullshit too?

 

[fast]

Do people actually convince drunk people to drive? I've lived an apparently sheltered life.

I would also argue that Bob is as morally responsible in the fatigue case as they DUI case, and that most of the extra outrage people attack to DUI stems from bullshit puritanical sentiments about getting drunk.

A drunk person operating a 2000+ pound machine. You have issues with a drunk person operating an excavator on a construction site or do you think that is puritanical bullshit too?

I don't think you're picking up what he's throwing down. What you think he's saying is some bullshit I would say. He, on the other hand, isn't speaking of the reasonable disdain we would ordinarily have for the average drunk driver. It's that extra spill over elevating disdain to actual outrage brought about by preexisting religiously based attitudes towards just drinking.

 

[TSwizzle]

Andrew must shoulder most of the blame and be held responsible for injuries to Bob and Carl. I would hope Bob volunteer to help Andrew with any expenses incurred.

 

[ronburgundy]

Do people actually convince drunk people to drive? I've lived an apparently sheltered life.
A drunk person operating a 2000+ pound machine. You have issues with a drunk person operating an excavator on a construction site or do you think that is puritanical bullshit too?

I don't think you're picking up what he's throwing down. What you think he's saying is some bullshit I would say. He, on the other hand, isn't speaking of the reasonable disdain we would ordinarily have for the average drunk driver. It's that extra spill over elevating disdain to actual outrage brought about by preexisting religiously based attitudes towards just drinking.

This is pretty close to accurate. I'm not saying there isn't reason to be upset about drunk drivers. I am saying that there is no reason to be any more upset at them than at sleepy drivers, drivers on cell phones, drivers paying more attention to their kids in their back seat than the road, etc.. It is puritanical bullshit against intoxication in general that leads to the extra outrage against DUIs but not against these equally dangerous other driving distractions that most outraged hypocrites engage in on a regular basis.

 

[Ford]

Legally, 100% Andrew.

I have a big problem with this, though.

I would say he's 0% responsible for Bob's--Bob knew the situation and convinced him to do something dangerous, thus he knowingly chose the risk.

I would say they share the blame for Carl's injuries but I'm not sure how to divide it.

A long time ago when I worked in a nightclub we had to go through compliance training regarding "risk management." Basically, if you serve someone drinks when you think maybe they've had too many already, and they go out and cause injuries or deaths behind the wheel, then you, the bar management, the bar itself, the hotel where the bar is located, and the company that owns the hotel are exposed to liability even if you weren't the last place they visited on their quest to get hammered. The lawyers for the victims will sue everyone even remotely involved.

A few years back I had a discussion with my insurance company after my daughter had a fender bender in her car. She was still on my insurance, and the rep laid out a very convincing case for getting her own. If she caused a more serious accident that led to injuries, the victims would of course get payouts up to the limits of personal injury liability covered by insurance, but then go after me if they felt that wasn't enough, and I could easily lose everything in the process.

More recently (late last year) I was myself hit by a drunk driver. Fortunately I wasn't injured. My insurance covered the cost of replacing my vehicle, then went after the other guy's insurance to recover that cost. I also was contacted by his insurance (over the phone and then in writing) to confirm that I wasn't injured. If something pops up, I have 2 years from the date of the accident to file a claim against them.

Legally I'd say that Carl could reasonably hold both Andrew and Bob responsible for his injuries since Bob knew Andrew was in no condition to drive and not only allowed but encouraged him to get behind the wheel.

Morally I'd say that Andrew and Bob are equally responsible as well for the same reason. Andrew was behind the wheel, but would not have been on the road had Bob not convinced him.

 

[Bronzeage]

No previous action by Bob does anything to reduce Andrew's criminal responsibility. It was an earthquake type shift in jurisprudence, when the US legal system came to the consensus that a drunk person cannot use their intoxication to defend themselves against criminal charges. This was a big thing. Getting drunk is a voluntary act, and all consequences of drunkenness are likewise voluntary.

If it can be shown that someone contributed to the hazards of the drunkenness, in a material way, that is upon them, as extra and independent criminal consequences.

In civil court, proportional damages may be assessed, such as in the case of a bartender who kept serving drinks after it was apparent the person was impaired. That's a commercial relationship, and the exchange of money makes a big difference. There is a strong moral and social obligation to prevent a drunk person from leaving in their car, but there's no such thing as assessing a person for not doing enough to stop them.

 

[Jolly_Penguin]

Getting drunk is a voluntary act, and all consequences of drunkenness are likewise voluntary.

Is that in any way applicable to rape via lowered inhibitions due to alcohol? Would Bob convincing drunk Andrew to a drive and quite possibly hurt himself, get arrested for duo, and get sued by Carl be analogous in any way to a frat boy convincing drunk girl to have sex? Or would we call the latter but not the former victim blaming?

What if Bob talked Andrew, who was hopped up on some hallucigenic drug or PCP etc to beat somebody up? To jump off a bridge? Is it the third party (Carl) being involved that makes the difference here, as opposed to convincing Bob to harm himself? And if so, then if there was no Carl, and instead Andrew drove them into a light post, would it be wrong (victim blaming) to blame Andrew?