Your friends should be adults, and you didn't force them to drink at the wine table. You have no criminal responsibility in this matter.
However, as fellow drinkers, especially the convener of drinking, knowing that they are drunk/drunk driving and not dissuading them, there may be civil compensation problems.
In recent years, there have been many cases of personal injury compensation disputes in which family members sued fellow drinkers. With the emergence and escalation of such disputes, more and more families of the deceased are suffering from the loss of their loved ones. At the same time, friends and relatives who once had a harmonious relationship have now become "strong enemies" in court. At present, China has not issued clear laws and regulations to stipulate whether natural persons should bear legal responsibility for traffic accidents caused by drunk driving, but in recent years, there have been many precedents in China for reference. Let's look at these precedents.
1. Jiangsu Li rode a motorcycle home after drinking and died. The drinker failed to stop the compensation in time.
At about 5: 30 pm on June165438+1October 2/KLOC-0, 2005, Li came to the dormitory where Xu worked for dinner with wine, and they talked while drinking. It's 19 in an instant, and it's dark outside. Li, who has always been a bad drinker, began to get excited as soon as he spoke. On the way to the farewell, Xu reminded Li to pay attention to safety on the road. Li said, "Nothing! Don't you know my capacity for liquor? What do you think of this little wine? "I started the motorcycle and drove away. Shortly after Li left Xu's dormitory, Xu heard a loud bang outside and immediately ran out to check, only to find that Li had hit the telephone pole on the roadside and was lying unconscious on the side of the road. Xu quickly called 1 10 for help. After being taken to the hospital, Li died of his injuries the next day. After Li's descendants dealt with it, the Li family took Xu to court in grief. Li's family thought that Xu did not fulfill the responsibility of reminding and caring, which led to Li's death. Therefore, I asked the court to order compensation for various losses of more than 87,000 yuan. The court held that Xu knew that Li was driving a motorcycle and the return journey was far away. It should be that he failed to fulfill his reasonable obligation of reminding. Xu should bear part of the responsibility and judge him to compensate Li's family for more than 30,000 yuan. Xu refused to accept the first-instance judgment and appealed, and the second-instance judgment upheld the original judgment.
Cai, a drunk driver in Shunyi, Beijing, sent his drinking buddy's children to school. The family members who died in the car accident claimed compensation from the drinker and got support.
After drinking with Wang, a villager in the same village, Cai was asked by Wang to drive a motorcycle to send Wang's children to school. As a result, on his way back, he ran into a roadside telephone pole and died after being rescued. According to the traffic detachment, Cai's drunk driving without wearing a helmet was the cause of the traffic accident, and Cai was fully responsible. However, Cai's family believes that Wang knows that Cai is drunk, but for his own benefit, he still asks Cai to ride a motorcycle on the road, which eventually leads to the tragedy of car crash and death. Therefore, Wang was responsible for the death of Cai, so he appealed to the court and asked Wang to compensate for various losses of more than 260,000 yuan. The court held through trial that Cai's driving without wearing a helmet after drinking was the direct cause of his death, and his own behavior was at fault for the damage. However, because driving the vehicle itself is a high-risk operation, Wang still asked Cai to send his children to school for his own benefit, which caused Cai to be in a state of drunk driving and eventually led to a traffic accident, which led to Cai's death. Therefore, Wang's behavior is also at fault for the consequences of Cai's death and should bear part of the responsibility; Cai died on the way to send Wang's children to school. As a beneficiary, Wang should also give reasonable compensation to Cai's family. In addition, Cai's death will inevitably cause mental damage to his family, and Wang should also make some compensation to Cai's family. Finally, the court ruled that Wang compensated the plaintiff Cai's family for hospitalization expenses, medical expenses, nursing expenses, funeral expenses, death compensation, and living expenses of the dependents, totaling 959 13.7 yuan, and paid spiritual comfort 10000 yuan.
3. Jiangsu brother was sued and compensated his brother for driving death of 40,000 yuan.
Radar left his younger brother Xiao Lei to eat at home, and they drank a bottle of yellow wine together. After dinner, my brother got drunk and rode his motorcycle home alone. On the road, Xiao Lei drove his motorcycle into the flower bed in the middle of the road and was injured. He died after being rescued by the hospital. After the incident, Xiao Lei's wife and daughter came to court to sue, arguing that Radar should bear corresponding responsibility for Xiao Lei's death, and demanded that Radar compensate 20% of the losses caused by Xiao Lei's death. The court held that the defendant radar, as his brother, invited his brother to eat and drink at home out of kindness, which was understandable, but he should have foreseen the possible dangers of driving a motor vehicle on the road after drinking to a certain extent. However, the radar failed to fulfill this duty of care, and did not discourage the drunken brother from driving his motorcycle home, so he should bear the corresponding responsibility. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant Radar was liable for 10% and compensated the plaintiff for 40,000 yuan.
Fourth, the family of Li, a drunk driver in Fangshan, Beijing, sued his fellow drinkers and demanded compensation of 33,000 yuan.
On June 30, 2008, Li was entrusted by Zhao to drive a four-wheeled agricultural vehicle to Zhao's home to deliver a check. They had lunch at Zhao's house and drank (white wine) together. When the two sides were eating, Li was driving an agricultural vehicle because of something, and Zhao did not effectively dissuade him. When Li drove to the Yanshi Road Expressway Bridge in Fangshan District, he drove into the retrograde road and collided with the bicycles of Xiaomou and Xumou coming in the opposite direction. Li and Xiao died on the spot and Xu was seriously injured. The traffic control department said that Li was drunk and speeding, driving in the opposite direction and taking full responsibility. Xiao's wife, Xu, sued Li's wife and children (Li's heir) and demanded compensation for economic losses. The court ruled that Li's wife and children compensated Xiao's family and Xu's economic losses 1 15789 yuan. The court held through trial that the deceased Li, as a motor vehicle driver with full capacity, should know the consequences of drunk driving. In the traffic accident, Li was drunk, speeding and other illegal situations, and took full responsibility for the accident. However, the defendant, knowing that Li was driving, still entertained Li at home and drank white wine with him, and then Li drove away. The defendant did not effectively dissuade Li from driving after drinking, so the defendant was also at fault for Li's death and should bear the corresponding liability for compensation for the plaintiff's economic losses. Since the defendant did not directly infringe, the plaintiff's claim for compensation for mental damage was not considered. Finally, the court ruled that the defendant compensated the three plaintiffs for economic losses totaling more than 33,000 yuan.
The judge's explanation:
As a natural person with full capacity for civil conduct, he should make reasonable expectations of the consequences of his actions when carrying out civil acts. Article 22 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China stipulates: "Motor vehicle drivers should abide by the provisions of road traffic safety laws and regulations and drive safely and civilized in accordance with operating norms. Drinking alcohol, taking psychotropic drugs or narcotic drugs controlled by the state, or suffering from diseases that hinder safe driving of motor vehicles, or excessive fatigue affects safe driving, are not allowed to drive motor vehicles. " Article 91: "Anyone who drives a motor vehicle after drinking alcohol shall be temporarily detained for more than one month and less than three months, and shall be fined more than 200 yuan and less than 500 yuan;" Anyone who drives a motor vehicle after being drunk shall be restrained by the traffic administrative department of the public security organ until he wakes up, detained for less than 15 days and temporarily detained for more than three months and less than six months with a motor vehicle driver's license, and imposed with a fine of more than 500 yuan and less than 2,000 yuan. "The law expressly prohibits drunk driving, which is enough to show that drunken gaffes can lead to danger. Although motor vehicle drivers, as adults, should be responsible for their own actions, due to China's long-standing wine culture, the wine-persuading culture in modern society has gradually become popular. If the driver is drunk because he can't resist the frequent persuasion of fellow drinkers, and then the fellow drinkers fail to fulfill the necessary duty of care and care, which eventually leads to a traffic accident, then the fellow drinkers are at fault and should bear certain responsibilities.
Therefore, raising awareness of the dangers of drunk driving is not only a personal matter for drivers, but also the responsibility of all members of society. At the wine table, whether as a driver or a fellow drinker, we should always remind ourselves or others not to drink and drive, which is not only responsible for our relatives and friends, but also an effective self-protection.
At present, China has not yet issued clear laws and regulations, specifically stipulating the responsibility of fellow drinkers or drinkers for traffic accidents caused by drunk driving. The existing domestic cases are mostly demonstrated and analyzed from the perspective of the duty of attention and care of fellow drinkers after drinking. This judgment trend is helpful to eliminate unhealthy culture of persuasion after drinking, effectively put an end to illegal behaviors such as drunk driving, and reduce the occurrence of tragedies.
In addition, in addition to fellow drinkers or drinkers, other two types of people: passengers and vehicle managers or owners, may also bear certain responsibilities in traffic accidents caused by drunk driving. For passengers, if they know that the driver is drunk driving and still take the initiative, once a traffic accident occurs, they may have to bear corresponding legal responsibilities; For the vehicle manager or owner, if he knows that the driver is drinking, but fails to stop him from indulging in driving, once a traffic accident occurs, he may have to bear corresponding legal responsibilities. The specific responsibility division standards of the above three types of people for traffic accidents caused by drunk driving need to be comprehensively judged by the court according to the specific circumstances of each case. The main factors considered by the court include whether they know about drunk driving, whether they are effectively discouraged, whether they have raised objections, and whether they insist on driving or riding regardless of dissuasion.