Drunk and Incapable

Victor

What are the rights and responsibilities of a passer-by to someone who is drunk and incapable? I am not looking for legal advice, but am merely illustrating a point for debate.

Leaving a shop the other day, there was a women in a modestly distressed state. She had fallen over and, I suspected she had banged her head. Her knuckles were cut and one of her wrists also appeared to be broken. She didn't want an ambulance or a taxi to go to hospital - she wanted to go home, which was a few doors up the street. When I and another passer-by tried to get her up, she was incapable of putting weight on her feet. Uncertain, I phoned the local Garda station and they said they would send someone.

Eventually, with the aid of another passer-by, we were able to get her up and she went home. It turns out that she was reeking of drink, but I couldn't smell it (my sense of smell is quite poor). I called into the Garda station, explained what happened and the desk garda said he'd still send someone around to her.

So, on the one hand, one could be dealing with the average drunk that has fallen over, but on the other hand, it could be someone who has slipped and banged their head. While morally, we have a duty to care for others, that can be difficult when it comes to someone who is drunk, drugged or off their meds, what should we (individually and societally) legally do.

I did come across a case about 15 years ago where a drunk had passed out on the street on a hot summers afternoon and was getting progressively redder - I initially suspected sun stroke rather than straightforward drunkenness. I phoned for an ambulance, but they wouldn't take him - they had been out to him 4 tiems already that day and he refused to go with them.

Zambia

I think your actions covered it morally. Legally I dont know but I dont recall any law saying you had to do anything.

johnnyskeleton

Legally, if you don't get involved and don't do anything then it is very hard to attribute liability to you. Unless it can be established that you owe a duty of care to the person in civil law(e.g. if they were on your premises and requested help from you but you did nothing) or that you directly and intentionally/recklessly caused their current state in criminal law (e.g. you poured the drink down their mouths and threw them to the ground) then there is neither a duty nor a responsibility in law to strangers.

However, I suspect you are asking a more general question of whether there should be?

Perhaps people feel that if they get involved they are only going to be sued or get abuse from the injured person. To be honest, the times when I have done as you have I have got nothing but abuse from the person and the abulance drivers were not best pleased that I wasted their time (in their view) with a drunk.

I dunno. Maybe it is old age, but there has to be an element whereby people are responsible for their own actions and if they are drunk, alone and bleeding on the side of the road, that should be a wake up call for them.

coylemj

Victor wrote: »

So, on the one hand, one could be dealing with the average drunk that has fallen over, but on the other hand, it could be someone who has slipped and banged their head.

Or had a stroke while walking on the street, the symptoms can easily be mistaken for public drunkenness. It happened the father of a friend of mine, by the time someone realised that he urgently needed medical attention it was too late. Lots of people had passed by and just assumed that he was an old geezer who had had too much to drink, he was stone cold sober.

So if you're a concerned citizen and you see someone on the street who looks drunk and it's not Saturday night in Temple Bar, smell their breath and if they don't smell of alcohol chances are they need an ambulance PDQ.

Victor wrote: »

While morally, we have a duty to care for others, that can be difficult when it comes to someone who is drunk, drugged or off their meds, what should we (individually and societally) legally do.

Well in the case of Amy Winehouse we can pay to go to her concerts, watch her fall over and jeer at her, then we can go out and buy magazines that pay papparazzi to take photos of her staggering out of the off-licence with yet another bottle of booze. And when she keels over and dies we can tut tut and say what a waste of talent.

You may say that 'morally we have a duty to care for others' but I'm afraid once someone is of adult age and hell bent on self-destruction, there isn't much that even their family can do about it, let alone a concerned member of society.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Legally, if you don't get involved and don't do anything then it is very hard to attribute liability to you. Unless it can be established that you owe a duty of care to the person in civil law(e.g. if they were on your premises and requested help from you but you did nothing) or that you directly and intentionally/recklessly caused their current state in criminal law (e.g. you poured the drink down their mouths and threw them to the ground) then there is neither a duty nor a responsibility in law to strangers.

There was a case a few years ago where someone had some kind of accident in a Dublin pub, it didn't necessitate an ambulance but the barman called for a local doctor who came and patched up the individual, the pub paid the doctor's fee.

The injured individual subsequently sued the pub for negligence and the judge held that in calling the doctor and paying his fee, the pub has implicitly accepted responsibility for the incident.

I thought this was setting an appalling precedent, is it any wonder that in most countries a doctor won't stop and render assistance at the scene of a traffic accident?

johnnyskeleton

coylemj wrote: »

There was a case a few years ago where someone had some kind of accident in a Dublin pub, it didn't necessitate an ambulance but the barman called for a local doctor who came and patched up the individual, the pub paid the doctor's fee.

The injured individual subsequently sued the pub for negligence and the judge held that in calling the doctor and paying his fee, the pub has implicitly accepted responsibility for the incident.

I thought this was setting an appalling precedent, is it any wonder that in most countries a doctor won't stop and render assistance at the scene of a traffic accident?

Do you have any details of this case? I can't see how calling the doctor would retrospectively create liability for the accident, and I can't see how the calling of a doctor would create liability in itself.

There are lots of rumours of this kind where people talk about a friend of a friend was there in court and the law is an ass. But if a real judge decided that, it would probably be overturned on appeal.

coylemj

johnnyskeleton wrote: »

Do you have any details of this case? I can't see how calling the doctor would retrospectively create liability for the accident, and I can't see how the calling of a doctor would create liability in itself.

There are lots of rumours of this kind where people talk about a friend of a friend was there in court and the law is an ass. But if a real judge decided that, it would probably be overturned on appeal.

I can't remember the details of the case but I didn't get it secondhand, I read it in the paper and I certainly hope that it was set aside on appeal. The alternative would be that a pub could leave you there bleeding on the basis that if they called a doctor they would be held liable, a situation which is clearly not in the public interest.