This question is inspired by the Ted Kennedy/Chappaquidick incident, but that appears to be under discussion elsewhere and I don’t want to talk about it here.
Let me present a hypothetical scenario: your significant other drives you to a party. You and your significant other imbibe alcohol. As your significant other is supposed to be driving home, you observe his/her intake during the evening.
After three hours, you decide to leave. Your S.O. has consumed six bottles of beer. You are almost certain that your S.O. is over the legal limit. You make no attempt or a half-hearted attempt to secure alternative transportation (or to remain at the party until he/she sobers up).
On the way home, your S.O. loses control of the vehicle and strikes another passenger vehicle. You and the driver of the other vehicle are killed. The inquiry confirms that your S.O.'s blood alcohol level at the time of the impact was twice the legal limit in your state/country.
So, dead you, consider the following:
Are you in any way responsible for the death of the other driver?
Are you in any way responsible for your own death?
How much responsibility does your S.O. bear for your death?
I’m talking morally here, not legally; the law pretty clearly assigns all fault to your S.O.- but is it correct to do so?
It seems to me that by making the case so extreme, you’ve made it simpler: of course you shouldn’t get in the car with someone who is twice the legal limit, nor allow them to drive off alone if you can help it.
Trickier are the situations that people really face: your partner has 3-5 (you weren’t counting) in a 4 hour period. They seem fine, but to your experienced mind, they are a little more relaxed than usual. You ask if they are ok and they tell you they are fine. You drive home and they handle everything ok, except when a kid darts out in front of the car, their reactions are a hair slow, and the kid dies. Tests show they are right at the legal limit. How culpable are you then? In some ways it seems like it’s obviously the driver that was at fault, but on the other hand, I know I do that kind of thing at times and it’s really chickenshit on my part: I won’t drive if I’ve had more than one, so I let someone with a higher tolerance for risk than me do the driving, and I don’t pay attention to if they’ve had 2 and are by any reasonable standards probably fine, or if they’ve had 4, and may not be. I say to myself they are an adult and know themselves and I allow myself to potentially take advantage of their poor judgment. Arguably, that’s just as morally responsible, plus it’s hypocritical.
I second the idea that the guilt is not a zero sum game. The driver’s guilt / culpability in no way reduces your own stupidity in getting in the car in the first place. And vice cersa.
I know that in New Zealand it is illegal for a bar to serve an “intoxicated” person. REgardless of whether they are driving or not.
Did they serve the alcohol to their friend (say at a party they threw)? In the US some states have host liability laws that make hosts who serves alcohol to their guests liable if the guest get’s into a car crash. It’s a variant on the “dram shop” laws that hold a merchant liable for damages if they serve/sell alcohol to someone who’s underage or visibly intoxicated.
I think everyone who knows what’s up shares in the blame. They are taking a risk with someone else as the main potential loser. Just like the guy who gives a gun to someone ranting about vengeance.
I wonder the same thing when I see cases where two drunk people get in a car, there is an accident, the driver lives, the passenger dies and the driver is facing a long prison sentence. Often it is a case where there is no question that the passenger knew how drunk the driver was, for example teens who were at a heavy drinking party.
I think the passenger does bear responsibility for his death if he knows how much the driver has had to drink.
