[2] Compiled from: Red Star News, Legal Daily
 
[3] In the dead of night, a wife suddenly fell ill and fainted. Living in a remote village, an ambulance could not arrive in time. Her drunk husband, Chen, had no choice but to drive her to the hospital for treatment and was caught by police on the spot. The procuratorate filed a public prosecution against Chen for dangerous driving. The Jiangyin Court ruled that Chen's actions constituted necessity and he bore no criminal liability. Ultimately, the procuratorate withdrew the case.

 
 

[4] It is reported that this is the first case in Jiangsu where a "drunk driving" dangerous driving case was legally withdrawn due to constituting "necessity," and it is extremely rare nationwide.
 
[2] Case Review
[5] Drunk husband drives seriously ill wife to hospital in the middle of the night and is caught
[6] This rare drunk driving case occurred on the night of December 7, 2018. To celebrate his wife's birthday, Chen invited friends to dinner at his home and drank red wine. Around 11 p.m., Chen's wife went upstairs to rest but suddenly collapsed, foaming at the mouth and unconscious. Chen immediately asked his daughter to call 120 for help. The 120 operator replied that no ambulance was nearby and one would have to be dispatched from elsewhere, with an uncertain arrival time. Given the urgency, and since family members and neighbors had no driver's licenses and could not drive, and no taxi was available, Chen had to drive his own car to take his wife to a nearby hospital for emergency treatment. Subsequently, Chen was caught by police on the spot. Tests showed Chen's blood alcohol content was 223mg/100ml, far exceeding the drunk driving standard.

 
 

[1] The procuratorial authority filed a lawsuit on charges of dangerous driving.
[2] After the public security authority secured the relevant evidence, the case was transferred to the Jiangyin City Court. Upon review, the procuratorial authority found that Chen, while intoxicated, drove a motor vehicle on the road, which constituted the crime of dangerous driving, and requested the court to pursue his criminal liability for dangerous driving in accordance with Article 133, Paragraph 1, Item (2) of the Criminal Law.
 
[3] In court, Chen had no objections to the facts and charges alleged by the prosecution. He and his defense counsel argued that the incident was justified: he drove his wife to the hospital because she had fainted and an ambulance could not arrive in time; the incident occurred late at night with few pedestrians on the road, the driving distance was short, no accident occurred, and the social harm was minimal; after being brought to justice, he confessed truthfully, showed strong remorse, and had no prior criminal record, requesting a lighter punishment.
 
 
[1] Court Opinion
[4] The court held that although the defendant Chen objectively drove a motor vehicle on the road while intoxicated, his actions constituted necessity, and he bore no criminal liability according to law. The judge stated that at the time of the incident, Chen recognized that his wife was facing a life-threatening danger and drove while intoxicated out of necessity, which fell within the necessary limits of an act of necessity, meeting all conditions for necessity, and his actions also constituted necessity in the legal sense, thus he should bear no criminal liability.
 
[5] Based on this consensus, at the end of 2019, the Jiangyin Court decided to withdraw the prosecution against Chen according to law; a few days later, the Jiangyin Court ruled to legally permit the procuratorial authority to withdraw the lawsuit.
 
 
[6] What is necessity?
Necessary defense refers to an act taken to avert an ongoing danger to the state, public interest, or the personal, property, or other rights of oneself or others, by harming a lesser legitimate interest as a last resort. The recognition of such an act is very strict and must meet the following conditions:
1. A real danger must have occurred;
2. The danger must be ongoing;
3. The harm to another legal interest must be unavoidable;
4. There must be an awareness of the necessity;
5. The act must not exceed the necessary limit and cause undue damage.
 
In this case, Chen's wife suddenly fell, became unconscious, foamed at the mouth, and her life was under threat, which could be seen as an ongoing real danger. At that time, the village where Chen lived was somewhat remote, the hospital could not dispatch an ambulance in time, and there were no other legal drivers around him. His drunk driving was truly a last resort.
 
Subjectively, the defendant's act of drunk driving did not have the intent to endanger public safety, but rather had the good motive to ensure his wife, who was in life-threatening danger, received timely medical treatment. Considering the specific circumstances at the time, Chen's drunk driving caused relatively minor harm to public safety and did not result in a traffic accident, meeting several conditions required for necessity. Therefore, Chen's act should be deemed as necessity, and he should not bear criminal liability.
 
 
[1] The author's perspective
The traditional virtue of helping those in need is a vital force for the smooth functioning of society and the enhancement of people's sense of security. Imagine if, when seeing others in danger or distress, people only gathered to take photos or completely ignored them instead of rescuing or aiding them—how cold and terrifying would that society be, and how could there be any sense of security in survival?
 
On the other hand, not demanding the impossible is an important standard for measuring the civilization and progress of law, mainly meaning that the law cannot command people to perform acts that are impossible. Another expression of this is "expectation possibility," which refers to the possibility of expecting the actor to perform a lawful act under the specific circumstances at the time. If, under those specific circumstances, the actor cannot be expected to perform a lawful act, then he should not bear criminal liability.
 
Specifically in acts of necessity, the person in necessity, under unavoidable emergency circumstances, takes measures that harm a lesser legitimate interest to protect a greater legitimate interest. The "unavoidable emergency circumstances" are precisely the "difficulty" that the law does not demand the impossible. At this point, if the law still harshly requires the person in necessity not to harm the lesser legitimate interest, then he cannot protect the greater legitimate interest. In other words, when choosing the lesser of two evils, the person in necessity cannot be expected not to harm the lesser legitimate interest; otherwise, he cannot complete the act of necessity. Furthermore, the key to necessity lies in sacrificing the lesser legitimate interest. If the greater legitimate interest can be protected without sacrificing the lesser one, there is no need to invoke necessity to exempt the actor from legal liability.
 
Although this case is not a major one, its significance is far from trivial. First, it popularizes the relatively unfamiliar term "necessity" to the public and helps encourage more people to dare to step forward and lend a hand when others are in danger. Second, it shows more people that judicial organs not only bear the important function of combating crime but also the duty to protect legitimate rights and ensure that innocent people are not prosecuted. Third, to some extent, this case highlights that the law enforcement philosophy of civilization, rationality, goodwill, and peace has been effectively implemented, allowing more people to feel the warmth and kindness of the judiciary and to truly experience tangible fairness and justice.