Try to take the keys away from a person four times over the limit. That isn’t going to end well. That is why you get the keys from them first.

And it is really hard to judge how fucked up someone is when you are wasted. I was in a crash and I thought the driver was sober. I had just got to his house after dollar drink night and he seemed sober. Turns out he was fucked up too.

Even if someone has one drink of alcohol its best they do not drive , if the drunk driver crashes its his fault . If you or someone knew they were drinking and driving , partly their fault for not stopping them

It does seem that the passengers get away scot free if they live through the accident.

The driver is responsible. Getting in the car with a drunk is an act of free will. Each person is responsible for their own stupidity, and the results thereof. Driving drunk is negligence. There is nothing in the world that should make someone want to get behind the wheel of a car when drunk except for laziness at having to come back to the location the next day to collect their car. Likewise, the motivation for getting in the car with a drunk driver is saving money on cab fare, or being too embarrassed to call someone to come get you because they will see you hammered.

Lazy or dead? Embarrassed or dead? $50 or dead?

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.

The seller of spirits or better yet to laws that allow the selling of alcohol (in the fashion it is being sold) , knowing a great percentage will get behind the wheel.

In my opinion each individual is responsible for his or her own safety. No one should get into a car with a driver that she or she does not feel safe riding with. As far as trying to stop the driver from driving, that’s not their right or responsibility. If the survivor you mentioned had decided to find his own way home, no one would have considered it his fault that the driver crashed his own car and died.

God. Let’s blame God. I mean Jesus encouraged drinking – his first miracle was to turn water into wine so that they could party on.

oops, I wrote “she or she”, lol.

^ someones been on the sauce , hops you didn’t drive on the internets at the same time :P

@DarkScribe alledged miracle.

Yeah, I did, on the good ol’ information super-highway

Some jurisdictions have vendor server liability laws and other have both vendor and social host liability laws. Others, specifically designate the intoxicated driver as solely responsible for any harm that results from his or her intoxicated driving. Some jurisdictions prohibit a host from preventing a person from leaving the premises and some specifically hold that no one is legally required to prevent anyone from attempting to drive while intoxicated.
http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/InTheNews/UnderageDrinking/Open-House-Party-Hosts.html