Case brief

The defendant Zhang and the deceased Wang were friends. On October 20, 2024, Zhang and Wang made an appointment to have dinner at a restaurant. The two parties shared a table for half an hour. During this period, Wang drank two and a half bottles of beer, and Zhang drank one bottle. Zhang did not obviously persuade him to drink. The two parties went to the chess and card room to play cards after drinking. Wang felt unwell when he went to the bathroom during the period, and was sent to the hospital, including Zhang. The hospital diagnosed Wang with cerebral hemorrhage and issued a critical illness notice to Wang's family on the same day. Wang was discharged from the hospital on October 21 without a doctor's order. He died at home on October 22. The medical certificate (inference) of death stated that Wang's cause of death was hypertension and cerebral hemorrhage. Wang's family believed that Zhang, who was drinking at the same table, did not fulfill his duty of security within a reasonable limit, failed to dissuade and care, and should bear the corresponding tort liability, so he filed a lawsuit, demanding Zhang to compensate Wang's family for death compensation, funeral expenses, dependents' living expenses and other expenses of about 140,000 yuan.

court hearing

The court held that through the hotel surveillance video, it can be confirmed that Zhang did not persuade, toast, drink, etc. Zhang poured wine for Wang at the wine table once, which also belonged to the daily wine table etiquette, and Wang's friends confirmed that Wang's daily drinking was much higher than this drinking; Wang had a history of hypertension, but his relatives stated in court that Wang had no past medical history, and other witnesses did not know that Wang had a history of hypertension, so it cannot be concluded that Zhang knew that Wang had a disease that was not suitable for drinking alcohol; Wang and Zhang went to the chess and card room to play cards after drinking, during which Wang's speech and actions were still within the control of his own consciousness, and it was difficult for ordinary people to judge that he was in a state of intoxication through general understanding, so Zhang could not be required to predict Wang's physical discomfort Judgment, after Wang was unwell, Zhang and everyone in the chess and card room sent Wang to the hospital for treatment, and Zhang had fulfilled his obligations of care, assistance, notification and escort. To sum up, it cannot be determined that Zhang was subjectively at fault for Wang's death and constituted an infringement, nor can it be determined that there is a causal relationship between Wang's death and Zhang's drinking. Zhang had fulfilled his obligations of care, assistance, notification and escort for co-drinkers after Wang's illness. Therefore, the lawsuit of Wang's relatives was rejected.

Judge's statement

    It is well known that the joint drinking behavior itself is a legal friendship behavior, does not belong to dangerous behavior, does not produce legal rights and obligations relationship, drinkers should have the highest degree of duty of care for their own life safety, but the joint drinking in the promotion of feelings, happy mood at the same time, may also affect the drinker's judgment, mental attention and physical coordination due to excessive alcohol intake, that is, the risk factor of the drinker's personal and property rights and interests increases, so the joint drinkers have certain obligations, mainly including: 1. The obligation to remind and dissuade, that is, when they know that the other party has diseases that are not suitable for drinking alcohol or engage in other dangerous behaviors, or find that the other party is in a state of alcoholism, drunkenness, delirium, etc., the joint drinker should fulfill the obligation to remind and dissuade; 2. The duty of care, assistance, notification and escort, that is When the other party is drunk or obviously unwell when drinking together, the co-drinker should take measures such as careful care, timely medical treatment or escort home and notify family members. At the same time, when judging whether the drinker has reached a state of intoxication and whether the co-drinker is at fault, the general understanding and foreseeable range of ordinary people should be taken as a reasonable limit. That is, the determination of the tort liability of the co-drinker should consider whether the co-drinker is subjectively at fault, whether the co-drinker has violated the law, and whether there is a causal relationship between the co-drinker and the fact of damage. In the daily life of ordinary people, the behavior of eating and drinking together is common. If it is only because of drinking at the same table, it is necessary to bear responsibility for emergencies, which too aggravates the obligation burden of daily life and social behavior, is not conducive to harmonious communication between people, and violates the original intention of legal setting and judicial practice. But such cases also remind everyone that drinking at the same table should be careful, and be responsible

    This article is transferred from the "Shandong High Law" WeChat official account, thank you here!