Recently, the Daye City People's Court in Hubei Province adjudicated a case involving liability for breach of safety assurance obligations. Tian, who was drunk, refused to ride in a motorbike taxi called by his drinking companions and died after driving under the influence and crashing into a tree. The court ruled that Tian bore 95% of the responsibility, organizer Huang 2%, and the remaining six drinking companions shared 3% collectively, while Li, who left early, was not held liable.

On the evening of May 2025, Huang invited Tian, Huang A, Hu, Li, and others to gather for a meal and drink at Huang A's home. Tian consumed a mix of baijiu and beer. At around 7:30 PM that night, Li left early. Around 8:00 PM, Tian stood up to go home, and Huang transferred 20 yuan to Hu to arrange a motorcycle ride for Tian. After the motorcycle arrived, Tian refused to ride and left alone on an unregistered two-wheeled motorcycle.

That night, while driving along a certain road section, Tian crashed into a street tree due to improper operation and died despite rescue efforts. The traffic police department determined that he was driving under the influence of alcohol and without a helmet, bearing full responsibility for the accident. A forensic examination revealed his blood ethanol level reached 146.84mg/100ml, with the cause of death being cranial injury from the traffic accident. After the accident, due to failed negotiations over compensation, Tian's family sued Huang, Chen, Huang A, and five others in court, demanding compensation totaling over 740,000 yuan for various losses.

The plaintiff insisted that the co-drinkers at the gathering had encouraged excessive drinking by Tian, and that the defendants failed to provide adequate care, escort, or assistance when he left. The defendants argued that Tian had only consumed a small amount of baijiu and less than a bottle of beer, and that his drinking capacity was good. The amount consumed that night was within his control, and no one had pressured him to drink further. A vehicle was arranged for Tian before he departed, but he refused to ride in it and drove away himself. The defendants claimed they had fulfilled their duty of reasonable care and escort.

In the courtroom, both parties debated key issues such as whether there was any drinking encouragement or forceful drinking during the meal, whether the act of calling a motorbike taxi on behalf of someone fulfilled the duty of care, whether Li should bear responsibility for leaving early, and the extent of fault among the co-drinkers.

After reviewing the case, the court ruled that shared drinking falls under the category of friendly social interactions, and the available evidence does not prove that the defendants engaged in urging, competing, or forcing Tian to drink. As a person with full legal capacity, Tian should have reasonably foreseen the risks of drunk driving. Refusing to ride in a solo-driven vehicle was the direct cause of death and should bear the majority of the responsibility.

Those who arranged for motorcycle taxis and paid the fare on behalf of the departing person can be considered to have fulfilled a certain duty of care and reminder. However, knowingly failing to follow the person after they refused the ride and left alone, and not contacting their family, constitutes negligence. Huang, as the organizer, bears a higher duty of care toward those driving to the banquet and thus assumes slightly greater responsibility than the other co-drinkers. Li left the scene before Tian, making it impossible to foresee the subsequent danger, and thus bears no causal relationship to Tian's death and should not be held liable for compensation.

The court determined that the total losses, including death compensation, funeral expenses, mental distress compensation, living expenses for dependents, medical expenses, and others, amounted to 1.6525 million yuan. It was further decided that Tian should bear 95% of the responsibility, Huang 2%, and Chen and five others 3%, while Li was exempt from liability, leading to the aforementioned judgment.

The Tian family disagreed and filed an appeal. After reviewing the case, the second-instance court rejected the appeal and upheld the original verdict.

This article is reposted from the WeChat Official Account "Shandong Gao Fa," and our gratitude is expressed here!