I have a question about DUI laws.

[SANE-A30]

last week we received a patient that was involved in a motorcycle vs PARKED car, no helmet DUI ( alcohol & pills) his spouse was with him on the bike and she is fine no injuries... he on the other hand is one foot in the grave literally..do they have laws if he should pass where she could be held accountable for his death?? I'm not saying she should be , but i've always wondered about this my ex Bil was killed due to drinking and driving, killed by his poor choices, I know that a person has to be accountable for their own actions, however, if you are a "sober" party and you allow someone else to drive instead of yourself and they are killed should'nt there be some type of reprecussion? and perhaps there is so I thought I would ask this here.. thanks

[retdetsgt]

No. There can be some civil liability if you serve someone alcohol to the point they are drunk and they leave your house or commercial establishment and get into a wreck and injure someone else. But the drunk can't sue you, only the innocent party that was injured (or estate of someone killed).

In the case you cited, she was stupid to ride with him when he was drunk, but he's a big boy and makes his own decisions. She has no legal responsibility to stop him even if she could (which is usually questionable).

[mcsap]

The only way criminal responsibility can attach is if it were HER motorcycle and she ALLOWED him to drive KNOWING he was dui. Not the easiest thing to prove but it can be done , mainly from bar video and bartender /witness statements.

If the bike was jointly owned and or just his then none of this applies.

[cntryboy0531]

In Florida she could be held civilaly liable and be sued, but that's about it.

We do have a culpable negligence statute that by the defination would technically fit the bill of the situation, but it would be hard to prove that she completely allowed him to drive, and that he didn't "demand" to drive. Culpable Neglience also plays a factor in manslaughter charges. However, I've never seen someone being charged with it for allowing a DUI to drive. Too hard to prove in my opinion. I am working a fatality right now where a motorcyclist was killed who was DUI, and he was allowed to drive off. I just can't prove it beyond a resonable doubt. Only thing I can do is write a good report and let the family deal with it in civil court.

[SANE-A30]

In Florida she could be held civilaly liable and be sued, but that's about it.

We do have a culpable negligence statute that by the defination would technically fit the bill of the situation, but it would be hard to prove that she completely allowed him to drive, and that he didn't "demand" to drive. Culpable Neglience also plays a factor in manslaughter charges. However, I've never seen someone being charged with it for allowing a DUI to drive. Too hard to prove in my opinion. I am working a fatality right now where a motorcyclist was killed who was DUI, and he was allowed to drive off. I just can't prove it beyond a resonable doubt. Only thing I can do is write a good report and let the family deal with it in civil court.

thanks guys that pretty much answered my question
I was just thinking if you had a couple say one was drunk and one was'nt and there was a law that if something should happen ( accident) and the other party could be charged for allowing you to drive the drunk person would be more opted to have a designated driver but then again when you are drinking the LAST thing you think about is responsibility....I also did not know that the Florida Dui fines were so cheap and could be exchanged for community service???? I think garnishing wages would be better send the money to the state or the local PD...

[scott715us]

I'm finishing up with Tort law in April and from what I have learned, most courts normally do not hold another party accountable for the actions of another unless there was more of a relationship as mscap mentioned above (such as employer/employee, host/guest, doctor/patient, parent/child, etc). There's a couple of other exceptions involving aiding/abetting and joint-venture type scenarios, but they're not really applicable here. The wife can be sued by the man's family, but in my opinion it's not likely a court will hold the wife accountable in any way.

A TN case came to mind when reading your scenario (Cecil v. Hardin) where the parents sued the driver and passenger of a vehicle who struck and killed their son while he was riding a bicycle. The parents felt the passenger owed a duty to keep the driver from driving because of his intoxication. Here's an excerpt from the court's ruling...

First, they have argued that Hardin was negligent in permitting Edwards to drive, knowing him to be under the influence of either drugs or alcohol. We find no merit in this argument. A passenger has no duty to the public to control or to attempt to control the operation of a vehicle where he has no right to do so, either as a result of his relationship to it or to the driver. 6 Blashfield, Automobile Law & Practice, s 251.6 et seq. (3d ed. 1966). See, e. g., Coffman v. Kennedy, 74 Cal.App.3d 28, 141 Cal.Rptr. 267 (1977); Sloan v. Flack, 150 So.2d 646 (La.App.1963); Mims v. Coleman, 248 S.C. 235, 149 S.E.2d 623 (1966). Cf. Restatement (Second) of Torts, s 315. Here, there is no evidence from which the jury might have found that Hardin had a right to control the operation of the automobile, as opposed to the mere “right” to make suggestions, in which Edwards might or might not acquiesce. Compare Malbrough v. Davidson, 219 So.2d 313 (La.App.1969); Galvan v. Sisk, 526 S.W.2d 717 (Tex.Civ.App.1975).

Some courts may vary in this arena, but from what I gathered, the majority hold the same view as above. Unless there's more of a direct connection between the two people, the adult who's drinking is considered an independent action that keeps others from being held liable. Basically in layman's terms these folks are responsible for their own actions.

Also as mscap mentioned, the case may hold more weight if it was HER motorcycle. If it's his, I doubt it would even go beyond summary judgment (where the judge doesn't allow it to go to jury trial).

[cntryboy0531]

thanks guys that pretty much answered my question
I was just thinking if you had a couple say one was drunk and one was'nt and there was a law that if something should happen ( accident) and the other party could be charged for allowing you to drive the drunk person would be more opted to have a designated driver but then again when you are drinking the LAST thing you think about is responsibility....I also did not know that the Florida Dui fines were so cheap and could be exchanged for community service???? I think garnishing wages would be better send the money to the state or the local PD...

A lot of things can be paid with community service, even a traffic ticket. The last few times I've been in traffic court, the judge has given a defendant hours of community service if they say they can't pay. If they don't do community service by the date told, the money is due, and the license will be suspended if not paid.

DUI fine's can be pretty steep for multiple offenders. For a first time offender, the fine is not too bad, however, you pay out the wazoo in legal fees. Some DUI attorney's in my area charge you more if you are caught DUI by a member of our Traffic Unit. Not uncommon to pay upwards and over $5000 just to represent you. They pay the money to the attorney irregardless of the outcome of the case, plus fines, plus court costs, plus investigative costs, plus impound fees, plus interlock device fees if it's ordered, probation fees. It adds up quickly. Even a first time DUI with a conviction can put you a good $7000-$10000 in the hole.

They pay one way or the other.

[retdetsgt]

In Oregon, if it's a first offense and there isn't an injury accident, the person can opt for a diversion program. If they complete the terms of the program, the charge goes away. If they had refused the breath test, they still get their license suspended because that's an administrative action from DMV, not the courts. If there is an injury accident, they can count on at least a week or so of jail.

Personally, that seems odd to me because it's sort of the luck of the draw, you're either DWI or you're not. If you're in a minor fender bender and the other person says they bumped their elbow, it's handled differently than if you crashed into a telephone pole, but didn't get hurt.

If there is a second or consequent offense, they're hammered pretty hard with fines and jail time.

[cntryboy0531]

In Oregon, if it's a first offense and there isn't an injury accident, the person can opt for a diversion program. If they complete the terms of the program, the charge goes away. If they had refused the breath test, they still get their license suspended because that's an administrative action from DMV, not the courts. If there is an injury accident, they can count on at least a week or so of jail.

Personally, that seems odd to me because it's sort of the luck of the draw, you're either DWI or you're not. If you're in a minor fender bender and the other person says they bumped their elbow, it's handled differently than if you crashed into a telephone pole, but didn't get hurt.

If there is a second or consequent offense, they're hammered pretty hard with fines and jail time.

Personally, I think on a third conviction of DUI, you should permanantly lose your license. I can "kind of" understand a first, and second DUI. You have alcohol problems, ok. Seek treatment. But I've been popping people lately for their 4th, and 5th DUI's. Sorry, it comes a point when the state has to say "enough" and revokes it for good. If you're getting third and subsequent DUI's, you have no regard for the lives of others, or yourself, on the road, and it should be a crime for you to just be on the road.

[retdetsgt]

Personally, I think on a third conviction of DUI, you should permanantly lose your license. I can "kind of" understand a first, and second DUI. You have alcohol problems, ok. Seek treatment. But I've been popping people lately for their 4th, and 5th DUI's. Sorry, it comes a point when the state has to say "enough" and revokes it for good. If you're getting third and subsequent DUI's, you have no regard for the lives of others, or yourself, on the road, and it should be a crime for you to just be on the road.

I totally agree with you.

A lot of people get stupid and have one and that scares the hell out of them and they never do that again. The way alcohol works is that after a couple of drinks, people feel tipsy and realize they shouldn't drive. But a few more removes inhibitions and they begin to think they're fine to drive. One DUI charge brings them back to reality. IMO, anyone who gets a second one does have an alcohol problem and they need to either address it or quit driving. And I say that as a recovering alcoholic.