Drinking and jumping into the river and drowning, are the people who drank together responsible?

In recent years, perhaps everyone has the impression that when the drinker is responsible for the accident caused by drinking, the co-drinker often needs to bear the corresponding legal responsibility when determining the responsibility for the accident. However, the co-drinker in this case was not judged to be liable for tort damages, for what reason?

We all know that in civil law, there are four elements that need to be met for the assumption of tort liability, one is the existence of tort, the second is that the tort leads to the occurrence of the damage result, the third is that the tortfeasor has the fault factor, and the fourth is that the tort has a legal causal relationship with the occurrence of the damage result.

In this case, although the victim was invited by others to attend a dinner together, as an adult with full capacity for civil conduct, he should have been aware of the risks of drinking, whether it was based on a friendship invitation or for work entertainment, and jumped into the river to swim while drinking without the other person drinking and had fulfilled the reasonable obligation of persuasion, putting himself in a disadvantageous position. At the same time, if the person who drank with him also fulfilled his obligation to persuade and rescue in advance, the victim should eventually drown as a result of his own actions, and this risk should be borne by himself.

Therefore, according to the above elements of infringement, if the co-drinker does not have the tortious act, nor does he drink alcohol or cause harm, although the harmful consequences of drowning have occurred, there is a legal causal relationship between the victim's own behavior of putting himself in a disadvantageous position and the result of the damage, and it has nothing to do with the co-drinker. Therefore, the co-drinker is not liable for tort damages.

In our concept, as long as they drink together and have an accident, others are responsible, but this time is different.

This time, no one advised him to do that, and under the persuasion of others, he still secretly jumped into the river, which shows that he is very confident in his water nature, and he still dares to go into the water after drinking, and the people present have no chance and time to stop it, and everyone including the staff also had a search and rescue at that time, all of which was caused by Xiao Yusen's conceit, so the people who ate together were not jointly and severally responsible.

If this happens, I should bear the greatest responsibility, but if other people who drink together instigate it, I will also bear a certain amount of responsibility, and if I dissuade but do not succeed in dissuading before the accident, I will not be held responsible.

Drinking and jumping into the Yangtze River to swim Wu invited several of his friends to come to the hot pot restaurant owner Xiao's hot pot restaurant to come to dinner, and the meal lasted for nearly an hourThese people drank a total of about four catties of liquor and 53 bottles of beer, everyone is not the same and is becoming more and more open, and Xiao took off her shirt and wanted to swim in the Yangtze River, but several other people hurriedly dissuaded them when they saw this, and Xiao put on his clothesBut after a while, the rest of the people went to the toilet, but Xiao suddenly took off his clothes again, jumped directly from the railing and fell into the Yangtze River, and finally drowned. His family wanted the people who had been drinking with him to pay compensation, but the court ruled that no compensation should be paid.

The reason why there is no need to pay any compensation for whether diving is a personal act is because friends dissuaded Xiao to a certain extent, and Xiao jumped into the Yangtze River to swim was just his own personal behaviorAlthough he had drunk a lot of alcohol with his friends before, his friends had dissuaded him, and he still relied on his own will to do his own thing, which caused such irreparable consequences. If his friends did not dissuade him, but instigated him to swim in the Yangtze River, she drowned in the endIn this case, these friends need to pay compensation, because the instigation of these friends has constituted a certain danger to personal safety, so they are responsible for this situation.

Drinking alcohol can cause our nervous system to be agitated and even cause us to do irreversible things without clear mindsIt is precisely because of this that we should drink less alcohol and at the same time discourage those around us from doing stupid things.

Yes. Because the people who drank with him must have toasted him to cause him to drink too much, they are also responsible for this accident.

No. The first time I jumped into the river and swam was already down by my companions, and the second time I was drowned when I went out alone to jump into the river.

Responsible. Because excessive drinking is no longer incapacitated, people who drink together may have acted as a dissuasion to drink excessively, so there is a certain amount of responsibility.

If there is no deliberate attempt to lead another person to jump into the river or cause another person to jump to his death, then the other people who drank with him are not responsible.

No. If it's just drinking together, and after drinking, they go their separate ways, and they don't know what happened to him. Is it because we drink together that we have to be responsible?

Legal analysis: It depends on the reason why he fell into the water, if it was because he was drunk and fell into the water, then it depends on whether these three people made him drunk. Otherwise, there is no responsibility.

Legal basis: Article 233 of the Criminal Law of the People's Republic of China Whoever causes death by negligence shall be sentenced to fixed-term imprisonment of not less than three years but not more than seven years; where the circumstances are more minor, a sentence of up to three years imprisonment is to be given. Where this Law provides otherwise, follow those provisions.

If a person drinks alcohol and drinks a dead person together, if the person at the same table has a prior obligation, such as persuading or pouring alcohol, he needs to bear tort liability. However, if the person at the same table does not have the above-mentioned behavior, but the drinker insists on drinking, and the person at the same table has fulfilled the duty of safety and security, he does not need to bear tort liability.

Civil Code of the People's Republic of China

Article 179.

The main ways to bear civil liability are:

1) Cease the infringement;

2) removal of obstructions;

c) eliminate the danger;

4) the return of property;

5) restitution;

6) Repair, rework, and replacement;

vii) continued performance;

8) Compensation for losses;

9) Payment of liquidated damages;

10) Eliminate the impact and restore reputation;

11) Apologize.

Where the law provides for punitive damages, follow those provisions.

The methods of bearing civil liability provided for in this article may be applied separately or in combination. Wheel paulownia.

Bear the corresponding civil liability according to the specific circumstances. First, whether the people who drank together were at fault for persuading them to drink; second, whether the accident was directly related to alcohol consumption; Third, whether there is a causal relationship between the accident and the drinking. Improper and forcible persuasion can have harmful consequences.

If there are harmful consequences due to improper persuasion, in addition to the drinker's own responsibility and risk, the drinker must also bear the corresponding civil or even criminal liability. It is a basic common knowledge that excessive alcohol consumption can cause harm to the body. Any person with full capacity for civil conduct must be held liable for his or her own actions.

If a drinker does not refuse to drink alcohol and causes excessive drinking and causes harm to himself or others, he shall be personally responsible in the first place. That is, the principle of the self-responsibility of the drinker should be implemented first. Therefore, in the allocation of liability, it is generally determined that the drunken person bears the primary responsibility and the alcoholic adviser bears secondary liability, that is, the alcoholic adviser should generally bear the liability for damages within the range of 10% to 30%.

Article 91 of the Road Traffic Safety Law of the People's Republic of China Anyone who drives a motor vehicle after drinking alcohol shall have his motor vehicle driver's license suspended for six months and shall be fined not less than 1,000 yuan but not more than 2,000 yuan. Those who are punished for driving a motor vehicle after drinking alcohol and drive a motor vehicle after drinking alcohol again are to be detained for up to 10 days, fined between 1,000 and 2,000 RMB, and have their motor vehicle driver's license revoked. Anyone who drives a motor vehicle while intoxicated shall be restrained by the Traffic Management Department of the public security organ until he sobers up, and the motor vehicle driver's license shall be revoked, and criminal responsibility shall be investigated in accordance with law; A motor vehicle driver's license may not be re-obtained within five years.

Anyone who drives a motor vehicle after drinking alcohol shall be detained for 15 days, fined 5,000 yuan, have his motor vehicle driving license revoked, and shall not re-obtain a motor vehicle driver's license for five years.