• ARRSE have partnered with Armadillo Merino to bring you an ARRSE exclusive, generous discount offer on their full price range.
    To keep you warm with the best of Merino gear, visit www.armadillomerino.co.uk and use the code: NEWARRSE40 at the checkout to get 40% off!
    This superb deal has been generously offered to us by Armadillo Merino and is valid until midnight on the the 28th of February.

Should you be liable if your guests drink and drive?

E

error_unknown

Guest
#2
Interesting to see that something other than being British has now become 'socially unacceptable' in France :?
 
#3
I believe this case may stem from the nature of the French legal code, where the onus is on the accused party to prove their innocence as opposed to the court proving them guilty. I remember hearing that French law is designed to protect the police and the legal profession, not the citizenry. Although no legal boffin, I believe that the current French legal system owes a good deal to the Code Napoleon, which may explain why this sort of case arises. I heard in relation to this case that a person can be charged if they ignore someone for example lying in the street or drowning.
 
#5
Personally think that case is a crock of shit, what were they exactley going to do? Why should they pay for what he did, he was an adult, may have been pissed, but he was still running his own life, not the man and woman there.
 
#6
King_Nothing said:
Personally think that case is a crock of s***, what were they exactley going to do? Why should they pay for what he did, he was an adult, may have been pissed, but he was still running his own life, not the man and woman there.
So when it's your family mown down that'll be all right then?
 
#7
Rudolph_Hucker said:
King_Nothing said:
Personally think that case is a crock of s***, what were they exactley going to do? Why should they pay for what he did, he was an adult, may have been pissed, but he was still running his own life, not the man and woman there.
So when it's your family mown down that'll be all right then?
If an attempt was made to prevent him from drink driving, all well and good. If he slapped him on the back and said "use the back roads as the pigs are on the main ones" he should go down (oooer)
 
#8
King_Nothing said:
Personally think that case is a crock of s***, what were they exactley going to do? Why should they pay for what he did, he was an adult, may have been pissed, but he was still running his own life, not the man and woman there.
I think the point of the prosecution was that it was felt they had some duty of care - as his hosts - to prevent him from driving after he had been in their house drinking all night. They were also criticised for not calling the police to notify them that he had driven off.
 
#9
Personally, I think that it is thoroughly irresponsible to serve alcohol to someone you know is the nominated driver for the night.

Surely the best option is to give the driver a bottle of wine to take home and enjoy after the party.

If you can't go one night without a drink, then you need to seek assistance.

msr
 
#10
They've been acquitted. It worked in their favour that they hid his keys, tried to persuade him to sleep it off, and refused to let him out until he turned violent on them. Think the case was a POS, all told.
 
#11
Rudolph_Hucker said:
King_Nothing said:
Personally think that case is a crock of s***, what were they exactley going to do? Why should they pay for what he did, he was an adult, may have been pissed, but he was still running his own life, not the man and woman there.
So when it's your family mown down that'll be all right then?
No it wouldn't be, but if - as it seems in this case - they were unable to stop them, who would you blame initally? The person who caused it - not necessarily those who could of stopped them. With this specific case, part of the prosecution's case was that the couple was negligent because they did not call the police - but haven't we seen the odd lout in town on the p1ss - collapsing all the gaff - who's to know if that person was going to jump into his car/bike/whatever. Have we jumped to call the bill? How far are we supposed to go in being law biding?

Don't get me wrong - I have and never will drink and drive, and I would be the first person to try and convince someone not to either. But if I can't, I should not be blamed. If this case turned out a guilty verdict, would all landlords, off-licence owners, party goers, clubbers, etc could be in the dock for the carelessness of other drinkers.

On the other hand - it would make people more proactive though. Tricky one that.
 
#12
MyssL said:
............................................. I would be the first person to try and convince someone not to either. But if I can't, I should not be blamed. If this case turned out a guilty verdict, would all landlords, off-licence owners, party goers, clubbers, etc could be in the dock for the carelessness of other drinkers.

On the other hand - it would make people more proactive though. Tricky one that.
It is a tricky situation. In the case of a private home, I think all that should be expected is an effort by the hosts to see that a drunk guest does not drive home.

There are places that have laws which hold busnesses selling liquor responsible for patrons leaving and driving drunk. That also is a difficult one I think. Sometimes even the best efforts cannot prevent a drunk hell bent on doing something, from doing it.

I wonder if there are any statistics comparing drunk driving incidents before and after such laws.
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#13
Spheroids! Adults have free will, if they drink and drive lock the buggers up, not anybody else. Are we all children??
 
E

error_unknown

Guest
#15
Forces_Sweetheart said:
Benjaminw1 said:
if they drink and drive lock the buggers up
Of course....after they have killed a family of four.
Well, ma cher, could bring in prohibition; that would stop 'em. Or even ban motor vehicles, even better.

Poo happens, victim culture says it is everybody elses fault; real world you and me are responsible for what we do, if we f*** up we take the consequences and don't moan about it.

rant offf.....
 
#16
Poo happens, victim culture says it is everybody elses fault; real world you and me are responsible for what we do, if we f*** up we take the consequences and don't moan about it.
I quite frankly don't give a feck what you do or how you do it but when your 'freedom' ends up costing somebody else their live's I think it's time to consider what else can or should be done.

The victim culture has naff all to do with it.

I suppose it depends what end of the telescope you're looking down :wink:
 
#17
[quote
I suppose it depends what end of the telescope you're looking down :wink:[/quote]

Whichever end your looking down the scene is the same, drunk driver = dead family! The only real question is, who do you blame? Unless the driver was held down and forcibly made to drink a local distillery, HE is to blame. Casting around for others to carry the can only waters down the guilt of the real offender. IMHO!
 
#18
Albeit this was in France - it is not too much of a stretch for the same thing to happen in Blighty...

It is just one more example of the disappearance of 'personal responsibility' coupled with the rapid growth of the 'nanny state'. And it's all spurred along by these bloody ludicrous lawsuits leaking over from the U.S and the growth of the 'no win no fee' vultures over here.

I am aware that this case - in France - was not a civil, litigious lawsuit seeking damages, but many of the same prinicples are at play.

Back "when a' wer a ladd" - if I tripped, or had an accident I'd dust myself down and chastise myself for not watching where the hell I had been going -- same scene nowadays and there are a host of people who reach for the Yellow Pages to find someone to sue for it!! It's b/s.....

Damn lawyers.....
 
#19
Pompey_Jock said:
Albeit this was in France - it is not too much of a stretch for the same thing to happen in Blighty...

It is just one more example of the disappearance of 'personal responsibility' coupled with the rapid growth of the 'nanny state'. And it's all spurred along by these bloody ludicrous lawsuits leaking over from the U.S and the growth of the 'no win no fee' vultures over here.

Damn lawyers.....
The same could be said for smokers who sue cigarette manufacturers. Surely they must know that when they started smoking - it wasn't for losing weight/encourage healthy growth/etc? People can't be that naive.
 
#20
MyssL said:
The same could be said for smokers who sue cigarette manufacturers. Surely they must know that when they started smoking - it wasn't for losing weight/encourage healthy growth/etc? People can't be that naive.
well, unlike the effects of drinking and driving, there actually was a time, up to the sixties even, that doctors believed smoking wasn't as hard on women as men healthwise, and even recommended smoking in certain situations.

So for anyone beginning smoking from now and going going back 25 to 30 years ago, yes, they should have known the dangers, but for some older smokers, maybe not....
 

Latest Threads