Brief remarks on the complicity of conduct alcoholic

There are some years, the press had reported a judgment of the Criminal Court of Dijon had sentenced a cafe owner who had served drink to an obviously already alcoholic person. This person is part of the facility by car, hit another car, killing all three people who were there. I said that the cafe has not been convicted of involuntary manslaughter but complicity complicity driving the influence of alcohol. This decision sparked a debate between those who favored greater involvement of those who can fight against the scourge of drunk driving (primarily bar owners, clubs ...) and those more favorable to individual freedom and in which everyone is free to drink and café owners do not have to turn into agents of road safety. Recall, however, that those selling drinks are bound by a duty of care and must not receive in their schools let alone serve alcohol to obviously intoxicated persons (art. R.3353-3 the Code of Public Health).

         Subsequent case law has not always been so hard on those selling drinks. Thus, the Court of Appeal of Douai (3 May 2005) was able to relax a preventable who served beer to a man already clearly more fit to drive and had committed an accident later. In this case, it had not been shown that his client knew that coffee had come by car and, therefore, it was likely to come away with. Must be proven to characterize the offense, on the one hand, the manifest character of the alcoholic condition and secondly, a knowledge of the means of transport of the customer. One can think that the campaign, the café should be more vigilant than in urban areas since the distance makes it more likely to travel by car.



          Recently, the Court of Appeal of Angers (October 3, 2006) has dealt with a case where the two defendants had carried their colleague clearly unable to drive because of his alcoholic condition until vehicle. Following the accident caused by the latter, the two colleagues are charged with complicity in driving the influence of alcohol. It is clear from their statements that their friend was "totally drunk" they stood "for not that grave." Therefore, they necessarily knew about alcohol levels of their colleague (3.7 grams per liter of blood!) And must have known he was going to drive home to him when he was unable to arrive alone in his car. The intentional element of the offense is characterized as the material element which is to have worn. The Court of Appeal confirms the judgment that sentenced the defendants to two months' suspended imprisonment.



          One may wonder what would be the decision in case of private persons pushing someone to consumption ("digestif for the Road"), knowing that the person will then lead. Indeed, we can characterize a positive act of provision of facilities (provide a strong alcohol) and a mental state (knowledge back in the car). I did not find any decisions in this regard, but this undoubtedly provoke much protest.