# "Owning a vehicle being driven by a drunk driver"? WTF? **URL:** \ **Category:** Factual Questions\ **Created:** [May 11, 2007, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715 "2007-05-11T16:34:18Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 1
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/1 "2007-05-11T16:34:18Z")
I was just watching ESPN News, and apparently Baltimore Ravens quarterback Steve McNair has been arrested in Tennessee for “owning a vehicle being driven by a drunk driver.” Apparently the driver in question was his brother-in-law. What the hell? I never even knew such laws existed. Is someone who loans their car to someone else responsible for anything that person chooses to do with the car? ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 4:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/2 "2007-05-11T16:38:16Z")
Never mind. Just found an [article](http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/chronicle/archive/2007/05/11/SPGMMPOUE11.DTL) that gives more details: > [@](#): > > Although McNair was just a passenger, he was charged with a misdemeanor under a Tennessee law that prohibits a vehicle owner from letting it be driven by someone who is inebriated. > > \ > > The law used to charge McNair doesn’t consider whether the vehicle owner was drinking, only whether the driver was impaired. Aaron said Nashville police have used the law to cite 42 other people this year. I guess that’s reasonable, although if the driver in question does not seem drunk, and the owner has no way of knowing exactly how much alcohol he has consumed, it seems a bit unfair to charge the passenger/owner, especially if the driver is not immediately and obviously inebriated. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 4:51pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/3 "2007-05-11T16:51:35Z")
Well, as long as the OP was answered, could I ask a tangential question? My daughter is 16 and driving with a learner’s permit. She must have someone in the car who is (I think) 21 or older and a licensed driver. What if she asks _me_ to be her licensed driver, and I agree, but she doesn’t realize I’ve been drinking? She is pulled over due to a light being burned out. The cop asks for my license, I comply, and he realizes I’ve been drinking. My daughter has a cold, therefore she didn’t smell it on my breath. I’ve asked this question of a couple different cops. One says I would be cited “for something”. Another said my daughter would be cited, but he didn’t know the exact charge. A third cop asked that I stop pestering him with hypotheticals. Anyone? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 4:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/4 "2007-05-11T16:58:31Z")
Apparently it is based on this statute: > [@](#): > > Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles. - (a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law. The offense is known as DUI by consent. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/5 "2007-05-11T17:13:05Z")
[QUOTE=vetbridge] Well, as long as the OP was answered, could I ask a tangential question? My daughter is 16 and driving with a learner’s permit. She must have someone in the car who is (I think) 21 or older and a licensed driver. What if she asks _me_ to be her licensed driver, and I agree, but she doesn’t realize I’ve been drinking? She is pulled over due to a light being burned out. The cop asks for my license, I comply, and he realizes I’ve been drinking. My daughter has a cold, therefore she didn’t smell it on my breath. [/QUOTE] Here is the statute: > [@](#): > > (b) Learner must be accompanied.–A learner’s permit entitles the person to whom it was issued to drive vehicles and combinations of vehicles of the class or classes specified, but only while the holder of the learner’s permit is accompanied by and under the immediate supervision of a person who > > 1. is at least 18 years of age or, if the spouse of the learner’s permit holder, is at least 18 years of age; or, if a parent, guardian or person in loco parentis of the learner’s permit holder, is at least 18 years of age; > 2. is licensed in this Commonwealth to drive vehicles of the class then being driven by the holder of the learner’s permit; and > 3. is actually occupying a seat beside the holder of the learner’s permit unless the vehicle is a motorcycle. > **[News, Politics, Sports, Mail & Latest Headlines - AOL.com](https://www.aol.com/)** > > Discover the latest breaking news in the U.S. and around the world — politics, weather, entertainment, lifestyle, finance, sports and much more. And here is the DUI provision: > [@](#): > > 1. Driving under influence of alcohol or controlled substance. > > (a) Offense defined.–A person shall not drive, operate or be in actual physical control of the movement of any vehicle: > > 1. while under the influence of alcohol to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving; > 2. while under the influence of any controlled substance, as defined in the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No.64) known as the Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving; > 3. while under the combined influence of alcohol and any controlled substance to a degree which renders the person incapable of safe driving; > 4. while the amount of alcohol by weight in the blood of: > 1. an adult is 0.10% or greater; or > 2. a minor is 0.02% or greater. I’m probably missing something, but I don’t see any requirement in the statutes that the licensed driver be conscious, let alone sober. Perhaps they’d get you for public drunkenness? > [@](#): > > § 5505. Public drunkenness. > > A person is guilty of a summary offense if he appears in any public place manifestly under the influence of alcohol or a controlled substance, as defined in the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L. 233, No. 64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, except those taken pursuant to the lawful order of a practitioner, as defined in The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, to the degree that he may endanger himself or other persons or property, or annoy persons in his vicinity. ---
**Author:** ![vetbridge](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/v/b5e925/32.png) [@vetbridge](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/vetbridge)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:17pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/6 "2007-05-11T17:17:10Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] I’m probably missing something, but I don’t see any requirement in the statutes that the licensed driver be conscious, let alone sober. Perhaps they’d get you for public drunkenness? [/QUOTE] Thanks (again)! My daughter and I looked at the statutes online when we first discussed the idea and I assumed something relevant was being missed. BTW, I love my daughter and would never put myself in this situation if it could be avoided. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:22pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/7 "2007-05-11T17:22:12Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] I never even knew such laws existed. Is someone who loans their car to someone else responsible for anything that person chooses to do with the car? [/QUOTE] I quoted the criminal provision earlier. In some states, there is even broader civil liability imposed on vehicle owners for acts committed by permissive users of their vehicles. \*E.g., \* > [@](#): > > The owner of a motor vehicle is liable for an injury caused by the negligent operation of the motor vehicle whether the negligence consists of a violation of a statute of this state or the ordinary care standard required by common law. The owner is not liable unless the motor vehicle is being driven with his or her express or implied consent or knowledge. It is presumed that the motor vehicle is being driven with the knowledge and consent of the owner if it is driven at the time of the injury by his or her spouse, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate member of the family. [http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(psihf245d2k3dumyeg2tswmx)](http://www.legislature.mi.gov/(S(psihf245d2k3dumyeg2tswmx)))/mileg.aspx?page=getobject&objectname=mcl-257-401&queryid=17953223&highlight=vehicle%20AND%20owner ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 5:26pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/8 "2007-05-11T17:26:28Z")
[QUOTE=vetbridge] BTW, I love my daughter and would never put myself in this situation if it could be avoided. [/QUOTE] Well, it looks (and I again emphasize it looks that way to me) like you’d both be ok, even if on the way to where you were going, you accidentally jabbed yourself with a tranquilizer dart, just as long as you did it in the passenger seat. 😃 ---
**Author:** ![mhendo](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/mhendo/32/3159_2.png) [@mhendo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mhendo)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 7:33pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/9 "2007-05-11T19:33:09Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Apparently it is based on this statute: The offense is known as DUI by consent. [/QUOTE] Thanks for linking to the statute. I still think that, in cases where the driver is not obviously intoxicated to a casual observer, it’s pretty rough to hold the owner responsible. Sure, if the guy is stumbling all over the place, or if the owner _knows_ that he’s had six beers in the last two hours. But if, for example, the legal limit is 0.08, and the driver ends up giving a 0.10 reading, i think it’s unreasonable to expect a non-expert without any special equipment to make a precise evaluation about the driver’s BAC. ---
**Author:** ![Chronos](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/chronos/32/134_2.png) [@Chronos](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Chronos)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 10:38pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/10 "2007-05-11T22:38:19Z")
> [@](#): > > 1. is at least 18 years of age or, if the spouse of the learner’s permit holder, is at least 18 years of age; or, if a parent, guardian or person in loco parentis of the learner’s permit holder, is at least 18 years of age; Does that strike anyone else as being a really weird phrasing? “The person accompianying the driver has to be at least 18, unless, of course, that person is the driver’s spouse, in which case the age requirement is 18. Oh, and if it’s the driver’s parent, in that case, it’s 18 instead”. It reads like a Monty Python sketch. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 10:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/11 "2007-05-11T22:42:05Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Does that strike anyone else as being a really weird phrasing? [/QUOTE] Yes. ---
**Author:** ![Asimovian](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/asimovian/32/172_2.png) [@Asimovian](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Asimovian)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 10:48pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/12 "2007-05-11T22:48:51Z")
[QUOTE=Chronos] Does that strike anyone else as being a really weird phrasing? “The person accompianying the driver has to be at least 18, unless, of course, that person is the driver’s spouse, in which case the age requirement is 18. Oh, and if it’s the driver’s parent, in that case, it’s 18 instead”. It reads like a Monty Python sketch. [/QUOTE] I had the same reaction. “Nineteen shalt thou not count, neither count thou seventeen, excepting that thou then proceed to eighteen. Twenty is right out.” ---
**Author:** ![WF\_Tomba](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/w/d9b06d/32.png) [@WF\_Tomba](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/WF_Tomba)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 10:50pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/13 "2007-05-11T22:50:16Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor, quoting the Michigan statute] It is presumed that the motor vehicle is being driven with the knowledge and consent of the owner if it is driven at the time of the injury by his or her spouse, father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate member of the family. [/QUOTE] Does this mean that if your idiot son gets drunk and steals your car, you can be held liable for any injuries he causes? ---
**Author:** ![MikeS](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/919ad9/32.png) [@MikeS](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MikeS)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 10:58pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/14 "2007-05-11T22:58:31Z")
Could a prosecutor argue that if the supervising adult was drunk or otherwise incapacitated, the driver with a learner’s permit was not “under the immediate supervision” of the licensed driver? ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 11:00pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/15 "2007-05-11T23:00:35Z")
[QUOTE=WF Tomba] Does this mean that if your idiot son gets drunk and steals your car, you can be held liable for any injuries he causes? [/QUOTE] Not automatically, but you’d have an uphill battle: > [@](#): > > Pursuant to the owner’s liability statute, also known as the family car doctrine, when a vehicle causing injury is driven by someone other than the owner, “It shall be presumed that the motor vehicle is being driven with the knowledge and consent of the owner if it is driven at the time of the injury by his or her father, mother, brother, sister, son, daughter, or other immediate member of the family.” If the driver is not an immediate family member, there exists a common-law presumption that the owner has knowledge of or consented to the driver’s use. **To overcome both the statutory and common-law presumptions, the challenging party must provide “positive, unequivocal, strong and credible evidence” that the car was not driven with the owner’s knowledge or consent**. (Emphasis added.) _Reed v. Breton_, 264 Mich. App. 363; 691 N.W.2d 779; 2004 Mich. App. LEXIS 3150 (2004) It’ll be presumed that you gave permission unless you prove otherwise. That means you’ve got to produce evidence and convince the jury that you didn’t give permission. ---
**Author:** ![Rick](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/9f8e36/32.png) [@Rick](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Rick)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/16 "2007-05-11T23:02:48Z")
Never mind, ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 11:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/17 "2007-05-11T23:02:50Z")
[QUOTE=MikeS] Could a prosecutor argue that if the supervising adult was drunk or otherwise incapacitated, the driver with a learner’s permit was not “under the immediate supervision” of the licensed driver? [/QUOTE] Yes. Very possible. I knew I was missing something. ---
**Author:** ![Gfactor](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/g/9de053/32.png) [@Gfactor](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Gfactor)\ **Post date:** [May 11, 2007, 11:31pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/18 "2007-05-11T23:31:20Z")
[QUOTE=mhendo] I still think that, in cases where the driver is not obviously intoxicated to a casual observer, it’s pretty rough to hold the owner responsible. Sure, if the guy is stumbling all over the place, or if the owner _knows_ that he’s had six beers in the last two hours. [/QUOTE] I agree. Actually it’s a bit more complicated than I originally made out. There are two statutory bases for DUI by consent in TN. But as you’ll see from the following case excerpt (and notice the half-clever attempt at a defense), both support your analysis: > [@](#): > > FACTS > > The appellant testified. He stated that on the night of his arrest he had consumed approximately six beers in addition to some whiskey. He stated that his nephew stopped by his house. Shortly thereafter, the appellant and his nephew departed in the appellant’s automobile. His nephew drove and ultimately caused an accident. The nephew failed three field sobriety tests and registered a .20 BAC approximately one hour after the accident. > > PREEMPTION > > The appellant argues that he cannot be convicted of driving under the influence. He maintains that he can only be convicted of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-202 (1993 Repl.), n1 a Class C misdemeanor. He avers that the specific nature of Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-202 precludes, displaces, or preempts prosecution under a general statute addressing his criminal behavior. > > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - Footnotes - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > n1 Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-202. Offenses by persons owning or controlling vehicles. - (a) It is unlawful for the owner, or any other person, employing or otherwise directing the driver of any vehicle to require or knowingly to permit the operation of such vehicle upon a highway in any manner contrary to the law. > > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - > - End Footnotes- - - - - - - - - - - - - - > > One operating a motor vehicle upon a public way while under the influence of an intoxicant is guilty of driving under the influence. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-401 (1993 Repl.). One who is a party to or aids or abets in the commission of DUI is guilty of DUI. Tenn. Code Ann. § 55-10-201 (1993 Repl.). > > The appellant’s conduct falls within the purview of both § 55-10-202 and §§ 55-10-201 & 401. When a defendant’s conduct is “defined under both a specific and a general statute, the [defendant] may be prosecuted under either statute unless the specific statute precludes prosecution under the general statute.” Tenn. Code Ann. § 39-11-109 (1993 Repl.). Conduct defined under two specific statutes may be punishable under either statute provided neither statute precludes prosecution under another statute. Id. > > Neither § 55-10-202 nor § 55-10-201 precludes prosecution under another statute. Accordingly, the appellant may be convicted for driving under the influence for aiding and abetting in his nephew’s commission of driving under such influence. This issue is without merit. > > SUFFICIENCY > > The appellant next argues that the evidence was insufficient to support his conviction. He avers that to sustain his conviction, the record must support a finding the he knowingly permitted another to operate his vehicle while under the influence. He posits that he was “too intoxicated himself to know that [his nephew] was intoxicated when he granted him permission to drive.” > > * * * > > The arresting officer testified that following the accident, the appellant’s nephew was unsteady on his feet. He stated that the nephew appeared to be leaning against the truck to steady himself. The nephew had slurred speech, failed three sobriety tests, and registered a .20 BAC approximately one hour after the accident. > > From the officer’s testimony concerning the nephew’s condition, the jury could have inferred that the appellant knew or should have known that his nephew was under the influence of an intoxicant when he gave his nephew the keys to his automobile. Our Supreme Court has held that public policy cannot permit motor vehicle owners to escape criminal responsibility merely by becoming so intoxicated that they are unaware of their surroundings or fall asleep. State v. Morris, 224 Tenn. 437, 456 S.W.2d 840, 846 (Tenn. 1970). This issue is without merit. The appellant’s conviction is affirmed as modified. _State v. Phillips_, 967 S.W.2d 826; 1997 Tenn. Crim. App. LEXIS 47 (1997) ---
**Author:** ![TheLoadedDog](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/35a633/32.png) [@TheLoadedDog](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/TheLoadedDog)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 12:19am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/19 "2007-05-12T00:19:52Z")
US traffic laws always seem a little vague to me, for some reason. That is to say, not obvious things like speed limits, but all the licensing and “impairment” stuff. In Australia, the fully licensed driver supervising a learner is legally considered to be driving (both people are) as far as alcohol is concerned, and the police can simply stop the car at a random checkpoint and breath test both occupants of the car. If the instructor is over the legal BAC, he or she will be treated as if driving. I’d be interested to know how other countries do this, especially ones that have a US-style “we’re not even sure you need to be conscious, just _there_” rule. ---
**Author:** ![helpmewithaquote](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/b9e5f3/32.png) [@helpmewithaquote](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/helpmewithaquote)\ **Post date:** [May 12, 2007, 1:27am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715/20 "2007-05-12T01:27:24Z")
[QUOTE=Gfactor] Not automatically, but you’d have an uphill battle: (Emphasis added.) _Reed v. Breton_, 264 Mich. App. 363; 691 N.W.2d 779; 2004 Mich. App. LEXIS 3150 (2004) It’ll be presumed that you gave permission unless you prove otherwise. That means you’ve got to produce evidence and convince the jury that you didn’t give permission. [/QUOTE] If you didn’t “give permission” wouldn’t that by definition mean the car was stolen. (If so) what a nice position to be put in - charge your drunken idiot son for stealing a car or be held liable for the damage he caused, when there is littel you could have done about it. [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/owning-a-vehicle-being-driven-by-a-drunk-driver-wtf/403715.md?page=2)