[2] Compiled from: Xiamen Intermediate Court, The Paper
 
[3] Drinking culture is a distinctive and indispensable part of Chinese culture. Many people are accustomed to discussing business at the dinner table and enjoy calling each other brothers over clinking glasses. Alcohol indeed brings people closer. However, in recent years, disputes and cases arising from drinking together leading to injuries or deaths have become increasingly common, reminding everyone that drinking should never be forced.

 

 
Case review
[4] On September 6, 2018, due to the "watching the fair" custom in Zhaiwa Village, Sankeshu Town, activities such as bullfighting were held, so the construction site was closed in the afternoon. Zhang had relatives and friends visiting, so he arranged for the workers to dine at his own restaurant, "Daoxiangyuan." There were two tables: one for Zhang's relatives and friends, where Zhang provided alcohol, and the other for his workers, where no alcohol was provided.
 
[5] That day, Liao rode a motorcycle with Liao Sheng to Zhang's house to join the workers' table. During the meal, some workers went to the other table to pour themselves drinks. Liao and Liao Sheng arrived a bit late, and Liao voluntarily joined in drinking. The meal ended around 12:40 PM. Liao rode the motorcycle back to the construction site with Liao Sheng. At around 1:20 PM, Liao left the construction site alone on his motorcycle. At 3:15 PM, on Jinshan Avenue in Kaili City, at the 0km+500m section, the motorcycle overturned after hitting the road edge. Liao died despite rescue efforts. The Traffic Police Brigade of the Kaili City Court issued a "Road Traffic Accident Determination," stating that Liao's drunk driving and failure to operate the vehicle safely according to regulations were the direct causes of the accident, and Liao bore full responsibility.
 
[1] However, Liao's relatives believed that Liao Sheng and Zhang infringed upon Liao's right to bodily integrity, health, and life, and should bear tort liability to the plaintiff.

 

 
[1] Court Opinion
[2] The court of first instance held that:[3] On September 6, 2018, Liao and other workers went to Zhang's home for a meal, which was a normal working meal provided by Zhang. Due to the local custom of "watching the gathering," Zhang provided alcohol to relatives and friends during the meal, which was also in line with local ethnic habits and folk customs. During the meal, Zhang did not sit at the same table as Liao, did not drink himself, nor did he urge Liao to drink, and was unaware that Liao had come to the meal and left by motorcycle. At the same time, because work at the construction site was suspended on the afternoon of the "watching the gathering," it was reasonable for the workers to drink on their own. After drinking, Liao was still able to drive his motorcycle safely back to the construction site with Liao Sheng. Liao returned safely from the dining location to the construction site, and the individuals who participated in the drinking, including Liao Sheng, had fulfilled their duty of care for his safety. After returning to the construction site, Liao drove his motorcycle away on his own, which was a personal act, and others had no duty or responsibility to ensure his safety.
 
[4] Additionally, the distance from the construction site where Liao departed to the location of the motorcycle accident could be covered within just over 10 minutes at a normal safe speed. However, from Liao's departure time of 13:20 to the time of the accident at 15:15, there was an approximately two-hour period during which Liao's whereabouts could not be determined, and the plaintiff could not provide evidence. The Traffic Police Brigade of the Kaili City Court issued a "Road Traffic Accident Determination," finding that Liao's drunk driving of a motor vehicle without operating it safely according to standard procedures was the direct cause of the accident, and Liao bore full responsibility for the accident.
 
[5] In summary, the deceased Liao, as a person with full civil capacity, had the ability to understand, judge, and control his own physical condition and alcohol tolerance. He also had the necessary self-control to refrain from driving a motor vehicle after drinking. His failure to exercise self-control regarding his own safety obligations, leading to his death from drunk driving, should result in him bearing full responsibility.
 
[6] The court of second instance held that:Generally, the law should not interfere with normal social interactions. Providing an appropriate amount of alcohol to fellow diners at a shared meal is a social courtesy, which itself does not create legal obligations. According to the principle of self-responsibility, drinkers should be aware of their own alcohol tolerance and whether it is suitable for them to drink, as they are better able to control risks and bear a duty of reasonable care for their own safety. Imposing excessively high risk prevention obligations on others would improperly restrict normal social activities. The duties of co-drinkers to remind, dissuade, and exercise care arise from foreseeable dangerous situations caused by their prior conduct, such as knowingly encouraging someone who cannot hold their liquor or needs to drive to drink, or failing to stop others from improper drinking persuasion. In such cases, co-drinkers, especially the host, bear an affirmative duty arising from their prior conduct. Only when there is a causal relationship between the co-drinker's inaction and the resulting harm should tort liability be imposed.
 
In this case, the appellee Zhang, as a foreman, provided lunch as a normal work meal, and offering alcohol was consistent with local ethnic customs and folk traditions. He did not dine at the same table as Liao, did not drink himself, and did not urge others to drink. He was unaware of whether Liao drank, how he arrived, or how he left, and thus owed no legal duty of care or responsibility to Liao. Therefore, he is not liable for the damages resulting from Liao's death. The appellee Liao Sheng, knowing that Liao had been drinking, failed to fulfill the necessary duty to remind and dissuade him from driving, but his act of accompanying Liao safely back to the worksite can be considered as having exercised a certain degree of care. After Liao and Liao Sheng drove safely back to the worksite, Liao then drove out again and had a traffic accident. There was a considerable time interval between the drinking and the subsequent driving, and the drinking was not the proximate cause of the traffic accident. As a co-drinker, Liao Sheng could not have foreseen this danger, meaning there is no legal causal relationship between his conduct and Liao's death, and he should not bear liability.

 

 
[1] The author's perspective
From the opinions of the first-instance and second-instance courts, it can be concluded that co-drinkers are not necessarily liable for all post-drinking accidents; the key is whether the co-drinker has fulfilled their duty of reasonable care. The author summarizes that co-drinkers may need to bear liability in the following four situations:
 
1. Forced drinking: For example, using phrases like "not drinking means you're not a true friend" to pressure someone to drink, or continuing to urge someone to drink when they are already drunk, unconscious, or lacking self-control.
 
2. Urging someone to drink despite knowing they cannot: For instance, knowing the person's physical condition and still encouraging them to drink, thereby inducing illness.
 
3. Failing to safely escort the intoxicated person: If the drinker has lost or is about to lose control of themselves, is disoriented, or cannot manage their own behavior, and the drinking companions do not take them to a hospital or safely escort them home.
 
4. Failure to dissuade drunk driving, resulting in damages such as car accidents: In such situations, we must strongly discourage it to avoid actions that lead to criminal liability. Moreover, preventing drunk driving can also avert harmful behaviors.
 
The author reminds here that during a shared drinking session, if someone drinks excessively or becomes intoxicated, the organizers and participants of the gathering have a duty of care to ensure the intoxicated person is protected from harm. If this duty of care is not fulfilled, the organizers and participants may be at fault. However, the standard of this duty of care should be limited to the ordinary attention of a general person, meaning it should be within the foreseeable scope of an average person. Although a thousand cups of wine are too few when drinking with a bosom friend, moderate drinking is better.