# Lawsuit could make designated drivers liable for intoxicated passengers



## GAP (30 May 2010)

Lawsuit could make designated drivers liable for intoxicated passengers
Article Link

Woman, who leapt from moving car during domestic dispute, sues driver
Kirk Makin

Toronto — From Saturday's Globe and Mail Published on Friday, May. 28, 2010 7:13PM EDT Last updated on Friday, May. 28, 2010 7:14PM EDT

A lawsuit launched by a woman who leapt from a moving car during a domestic squabble may make people think twice about being a designated driver.

The lawsuit, on its way to trial, could make designated drivers liable for intoxicated passengers who cause themselves harm.

The plaintiff, Inga Richardson, jumped out of a moving car at the crescendo of a fight with her common-law spouse. She suffered grave brain damage and injuries to her entire body after bouncing along the pavement of a three-lane artery in Oshawa, Ont.

Her lawyers – David MacDonald and Adrienne Kirsh – allege in a statement of claim that Ms. Richardson’s partner, Joey Sanayhie, ought to have supervised her copious consumption of alcohol at a party that night and prevented her from harming herself on the way home.

They contend that Mr. Sanayhie knew that Ms. Richardson had once leapt from a moving boat after she became agitated, and that he ought to have “restrained” her when similar circumstances arose on Nov. 24, 2007.

“He created a situation of emergency, danger and a trap for Inga Richardson from which, despite all precautions, she could not extricate herself,” they said.

Mr. MacDonald said Friday that Mr. Sanayhie still lives with Ms. Richardson and helps provide her with 24-hour-a-day care. Ms. Richardson suffers from headaches and dizziness, fatigue, blurred vision, permanent disfigurement and profound physical and emotional shock.

Designated drivers play a vital role in society, Mr. MacDonald said, but they must act responsibly. This includes paying heed to inside knowledge about a passenger’s potentially self-destructive behaviour, he said.

However, Mr. Sanayhie’s lawyers – John J. Adair and Greg Abogado – maintain that individuals will not agree to be designated drivers if they can be found legally liable for the misdeeds of their passengers.

“It is one thing to undertake to drive a few intoxicated friends,” they said in a statement of defence. “It is quite another altogether to be charged with supervising the same friends all night to ensure that they do not become intoxicated and remain safe at all times.”

In an interview, Mr. Adair said that the courts have repeatedly asserted that, while individuals have the right to make autonomous choices, they cannot simply blame others for their poor judgment.

“If designated drivers are required not only to remain sober themselves, but also to be responsible for their passengers’ level of sobriety, no person would ever agree to be a designated driver and perform this important function,” he said. “This is a development that clearly would not be in the public interest.”

Earlier this week, Mr. Sanayhie won a partial victory when Judge Edward Belobaba of Ontario Superior Court threw out a portion of Ms. Richardson’s claim. He ruled that a designated driver cannot be held responsible for how his passengers behave at a social event, prior to getting into a vehicle.

However, Judge Belobaba said that the critical question of whether Mr. Sanayhie was responsible for ensuring Ms. Richardson’s safety on the way home will be decided at a trial.

Mr. Adair said that it will change the law dramatically if his client is found to have had a duty to take positive steps to protect Ms. Richardson. “Such a duty could have a significant impact on the relationship between drivers and their passengers,” he said.

Mr. Adair said that anyone who agrees to drive another home - not only squabbling spouses - might be obliged to bodily strap passengers down to prevent them hurting themselves.
end


----------



## mariomike (30 May 2010)

If she wins, who pays? His insurance company? 

Judge Belobaba had this to say:
A trial still must decide whether Sanayhie was negligent in “not slowing down or coming to a stop once the threat to jump out was made by the intoxicated passenger.” 

He knew her history:
"knew that Ms. Richardson had once leapt from a moving boat after she became agitated."


----------



## PMedMoe (30 May 2010)

Great, so people can take even less responsibility for their own stupidity.   :


----------



## harry8422 (30 May 2010)

You have got to be kidding me....Why is it that people will never ever take responsibility for there own actions? instead they will just decide to sue someone who was doing them a favour in which they may or may not have killed someone. This i find is both funny and very sad someone needs to grow the f*$k up.


----------



## bdave (30 May 2010)

So with this we can say good bye to designated drivers.
I predict more drunk driving.



> The plaintiff, Inga Richardson, jumped out of a moving car at the crescendo of a fight with her common-law spouse. *She suffered grave brain damage *and injuries to her entire body after bouncing along the pavement of a three-lane artery in Oshawa, Ont.



No kidding.


----------



## my72jeep (30 May 2010)

He knew her history:
"knew that Ms. Richardson had once leapt from a moving boat after she became agitated."
[/quote]

Come on now compairing jumping from a boat to jumping from a car??????


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 May 2010)

What am I missing here?

If she's menatlly incapacitated, who contacted the lawyers with the complaint to launch the lawsuit?


----------



## Spanky (30 May 2010)

I don't see how suing him would make a difference in their daily lives, as he's already taking care of her.  Insurance money?


----------



## mariomike (30 May 2010)

my72jeep said:
			
		

> He knew her history:
> "knew that Ms. Richardson had once leapt from a moving boat after she became agitated."
> 
> Come on now compairing jumping from a boat to jumping from a car??????



That is what the paper reports her lawyers contend:
"They contend that Mr. Sanayhie knew that Ms. Richardson had once leapt from a moving boat after she became agitated, and that he ought to have “restrained” her when similar circumstances arose on Nov. 24, 2007."


----------



## armyvern (30 May 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> He knew her history:
> "knew that Ms. Richardson had once leapt from a moving boat after she became agitated."



Or she had a predisposition to behave like a psycho-bitch from hell?


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 May 2010)

If this goes through, I've driven my last sloppy drunk home.


----------



## exgunnertdo (30 May 2010)

I'm going to read between the lines a bit.

It costs a huge amount of money to care for someone who has significant disabilities. If she was working, she has lost her income. She may not have had any long term disability insurance. Likely she and/or her family will face personal bankruptcy and life on welfare without this lawsuit.

There was no car accident - she jumped, so no auto insurance money to pay for long term care.

This is to get his home insurance (which is where we get our liability insurance) to help pay for her care. 

Like I said - reading between the lines. I the above is true, her lawyers have to prove someone (him) negligent to get a settlement.

There was a case in (I think) Alberta a few years back where a child sued his parents for injuries sustained in a car accident while the mother was pregnant with him. He was not yet "a person" when the accident happened so had no standing in the auto insurance claim, and the parents were faced with having to care for him with all of his disabilities, and needed for him to sue them to help them survive, financially. 

Sad that in this case it was her own stupidity.


----------



## Old Sweat (30 May 2010)

recceguy said:
			
		

> What am I missing here?
> 
> If she's menatlly incapacitated, who contacted the lawyers with the complaint to launch the lawsuit?


I had the same thought. Could the boy friend be suing himself to get a settlement from his insurance company to aid in her care? I hope not. Perhaps her family is behind this. It is still unclear and maybe it even isn't the main point.

I wonder if the press, in its effort to get the "sexy" story, didn't miss the background issue?


----------



## Kat Stevens (30 May 2010)

exgunnertdo said:
			
		

> I'm going to read between the lines a bit.
> 
> It costs a huge amount of money to care for someone who has significant disabilities. If she was working, she has lost her income. She may not have had any long term disability insurance. Likely she and/or her family will face personal bankruptcy and life on welfare without this lawsuit.
> 
> ...



I have a child with disabilities, there is nobody for me to bring suit against for the money I've had to shell out over the last 22 years.  WAAAH, where's my share?  WAAAH, where's my justice?  If this woman drank herself into a state where jumping out of an automobile in motion sounded like a simply swell idea, it's on her, nobody else.


----------



## Eye In The Sky (30 May 2010)

Ok when will the stupidity (of people AND  lawyers AND our legal system) just stop.

Its simple.

STOP.

What next?  Murders who sue their victims for PTSD after witnessing their own crime??


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Great, so people can take even less responsibility for their own stupidity.   :



My thoughts exactly.  Not only are people no longer responsible for their own actions (temporarily crazy), but now other people are responsible for their actions, too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 May 2010)

http://www.ontariotravel.net/videos/FunPlus/Commercials/Commercial_Arkells.html?modus=fp-vid-comm-arkells&language=en

When they say "There's no place like this" : They're no lyin' 

Please check reality at the border upon entering 8)


----------



## bdave (30 May 2010)

Eye In The Sky said:
			
		

> Ok when will the stupidity (of people AND  lawyers AND our legal system) just stop.
> 
> Its simple.
> 
> ...



Some burglars have successfully sued those they were trying to steal from because they sustained injuries during their attempt.
http://overlawyered.com/2006/09/the-burglar-and-the-skylight-another-debunking-that-isnt/
I don't know if that link is a viable source, but I do know of stories told to me by engineering professors concerning human stupidity and design of a product.

One such case was an older woman who used a bucket as a ladder because she could not reach a high spot.
Of course, the bucket collapsed, and she injured herself.
She sued the company, and won.

As long as our judicial system permits people to sue for being idiots, then those idiots will continue to take advantage of that system.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2010)

If any of you drunks tries to drive with me when I'm sober and you're drunk, here's what you're getting:
Driving Tips


----------



## Old Sweat (30 May 2010)

I've never seen you sober.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I've never seen you sober.


Fair enough ;D


----------



## SeanNewman (30 May 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I've never seen you sober.



Even at work in an operational theatre, tisk tisk...







_Disclaimer - I may have been selectively cropped out of this photo getting my drunk on._


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2010)

Petamocto said:
			
		

> Even at work in an operational theatre, tisk tisk...
> 
> 
> 
> ...


There, just made the disclaimer a bit larger.  You know, for us older folks!


----------



## 57Chevy (30 May 2010)

bdave said:
			
		

> Some burglars have successfully sued those they were trying to steal from because they sustained injuries during their attempt.



That's why companies have to leave a light on in the building at night.
But that lady must be crazy to jump out of a perfectly serviceable vehicle  ;D


----------



## mariomike (30 May 2010)

I transported drunks, druggies and crazies for a living in the city.
When they jump, if they injure themselves, the two questions on the Incident Report are:
1 )  Was the crew aware that the patient might jump?
Only if you knew they had a history of jumping, or they told you they would. But, with people like that, you never know what they will do in a confined, moving compartment. Fight or flight. Or both.
2 )  Did the crew make an effort to prevent it?
We always drove nice and slow in the curb lane with people who were a potential threat to themselves, or more importantly, us. The main thing is to be prepared to stop the vehicle ASAP.
It seems the defendant is being held to that standard. As I said, maybe his liabiliaty insurance will take care of it. Either way, if they are common law, the money should stay in the family. After the ambulance chasers take their cut.


----------



## Michael OLeary (30 May 2010)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> I've never seen you sober.



The Technoviking does not get drunk, alcohol experiences the Technoviking until he releases it from his system.


----------



## observor 69 (3 Dec 2010)

Seasonally appropriate:

AT THIS TIME OF YEAR PLEASE PLEASE WATCH THIS VIDEO FROM YOU TUBE !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
Australian DUI Commercial - the most intense commercial that I've ever seen   
AND PLEASE DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE EVER AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

    
http://www.youtube.com/watch_popup?v=Z2mf8DtWWd8


----------



## Rafterman1 (3 Dec 2010)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> PLEASE DON'T DRINK AND DRIVE EVER AGAIN !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!



My opinion: Majority of people will never learn until they experience/witness the bloody aftermath of tragedy firsthand.


----------



## mariomike (3 Dec 2010)

Rafterman1 said:
			
		

> My opinion: Majority of people will never learn until they experience/witness the bloody aftermath of tragedy firsthand.



I wonder if what people witness from rubbernecking, and the six o'clock news, affects their driving habits?


----------



## Brutus (3 Dec 2010)

A friend of mine just got nailed under the new BC Provincial MVA drinking and driving law. For those of you unfamiliar, if you are caught with a blood-alcohol content of 0.05-0.07 (the Crim Code limit being 0.08), you get a mandatory:

30 day impound of your car (~$800)
90 day suspension of your DL ($150 re-licencing fee at the end)
Responsible driving course (~$800)
ignition lock for 1 year (~$1700)
cab ride ($100)
fine ($500)
points 

Totals around $4000. I am in no way excusing drinking and driving, BUT, she was under the legal limit set forth by the Criminal Code. This new law was passed through the majority BC Legislature and even the solicitor general is calling on cops to 'show discretion' (they should have written that into the law...the cops have no choice).

It is not possible now, in BC, to have even 1 drink and be assured that you won't be nailed by this STUPID law. I'm all for hammering folks that are clearly intoxicated and driving, but this punishes those that are acting responsibly (according to most I think), and not the chronic drunk driver.

/rant


----------



## bekkamgov (3 Dec 2010)

I know in NB if your under 0.08 then it is a 24 hour suspension.


----------



## Brutus (3 Dec 2010)

love_my_soldier said:
			
		

> I know in NB if your under 0.08 then it is a 24 hour suspension.



It used to be that way here too, but they replaced that reasonable piece of legislation with this...garbage. Retaurants are suffering more from this than they were when the HST came in.


----------



## kratz (3 Dec 2010)

I'm volunteering with Operation Red Nose  this year. If legislation was passed to make designated drivers liable, this would most likely affect one of the more effect methods of getting drunk drivers off the road.


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2010)

Would it also apply to Municipal Transit workers?  If I am going out I take the bus.

Then there are Cab drivers.  If I can't find the bus stop I take a cab.  

If I had my bicycle and had someone else take it home, would they be liable as well?  I know you can be busted for riding a bike intoxicated.

When will the madness stop?


----------



## bekkamgov (3 Dec 2010)

You can also end up in jail for the night if they think you are to intoxicated to walk home. Alot of the people that end up at my work, get lock up just walking home.


----------



## Brutus (3 Dec 2010)

I see an increase in popularity of the 'neighborhood pub' coming. That way, you can go and drink to your liver's content and cab it there and back for 20 bucks.

What's next? Lining up a guy at 0.07 and just shooting him? Jeez, it seems you're better off getting really wasted and taking your chances with a lenient judge (getting nailed under the CCC rather than these 'administrative' penalties). 

Not that I'm advocating that!


----------



## GAP (3 Dec 2010)

Province's (Manitoba) new laws hike penalties for impaired driving
By: Larry Kusch  2/12/2010 1:00 AM 
Article Link

Currently, a 24-hour suspension can be imposed for driving with a BAC of .05 per cent or higher, failing a physical co-ordination test and for refusing or being too impaired to comply with a demand for a breath, blood or physical co-ordination test. There is no opportunity to appeal such suspensions.

The proposed changes would see the province adopt tiered, short-term suspensions of 24 hours for a first violation of driving with a BAC of .05 to .08 or failing a physical co-ordination test, 15 days for a second violation, 30 days for a third violation and 60 days for a fourth or subsequent violation.

"We know that the evidence tells us that at .05 somebody's ability to drive is already impaired," Attorney General Andrew Swan said Wednesday after introducing the proposed Highway Traffic Act amendments.

Swan said there are about 40 repeat offenders in Manitoba each year who are caught drinking and driving with a BAC of between .05 and .08.

Suspended drivers will be allowed to challenge the grounds for the tiered suspension and apply for a conditional restricted driver's licence if the suspension is upheld but will result in undue hardship, such as job loss.

The province is also amending the law so it can suspend the motor vehicle driver's licence of people found guilty of operating a boat, train or plane while impaired.
end


----------



## Brutus (3 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> Swan said there are about 40 repeat offenders in Manitoba each year who are caught drinking and driving with a BAC of between .05 and .08.



How can you be a repeat offender at 0.07 if you are not offending in the first place?


----------



## mariomike (3 Dec 2010)

love_my_soldier said:
			
		

> You can also end up in jail for the night if they think you are to intoxicated to walk home. Alot of the people that end up at my work, get lock up just walking home.



I am surprised to hear that. 
Since 1971 Toronto Police have been permitted to transport public inebriates to detox centres.


----------



## Brutus (3 Dec 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I am surprised to hear that.
> Since 1971 Toronto Police have been permitted to transport public inebriates to detox centres.



Oh, that sounds like FUN!


----------



## Rafterman1 (3 Dec 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> I see an increase in popularity of the 'neighborhood pub' coming.



With the changes with the legal limit in BC, a neighborhood pub in my area purchased a 24 seat shuttle bus. They have about a 5-6mile radius where he'll pick you up and drive you home if you request it.  I've used it a few times.  Can't complain!


----------



## Brutus (3 Dec 2010)

Rafterman1 said:
			
		

> With the changes with the legal limit in BC, a neighborhood pub in my area purchased a 24 seat shuttle bus. They have about a 5-6mile radius where he'll pick you up and drive you home if you request it.  I've used it a few times.  Can't complain!



That's a great idea! What's the name/location of the pub?


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2010)

Well?

If you can get picked up for walking while intoxicated, and you can be charged as the host of a party if one of your guests is too intoxicated and leaves, that really means one thing.  We are being legislated into becoming "INHOSPITABLE" as a society.   The inmates are running the asylum.  










Think I'll go down into my basement and hide under the stairs and get hammered.


----------



## 57Chevy (3 Dec 2010)

love_my_soldier said:
			
		

> You can also end up in jail for the night if they think you are to intoxicated to walk home. Alot of the people that end up at my work, get lock up just walking home.



If you think that you are over the limit and you decide to just walk home,
make sure that you don't go walking over any bridges.
You may find yourself arrested for being drunk in a public place :nod:


----------



## dogger1936 (3 Dec 2010)

Great.
Now when the guys pick up a "older" lady at the 20/20 and she jumps out we can get sued? Now I'm gonna have to coinvince the gals to get in the trunk at the end of the night....I'm gonna have to get some smoother talking.

This law will destroy the sex life of the plus 35 crowd.


----------



## GAP (3 Dec 2010)

> This law will destroy the sex life of the plus 35 crowd.



There sex after 35?    ;D


----------



## George Wallace (3 Dec 2010)

GAP said:
			
		

> There sex after 35?    ;D



There is a requisition form and a waiting period.


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Think I'll go down into my basement and hide under the stairs and get hammered.


I'm on my way (to getting hammered, that is)

Viva la Friday!!!!!!!!


----------



## GAP (3 Dec 2010)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> There is a requisition form and a waiting period.



I know about the waiting period.....now about that requisition......


----------



## bekkamgov (3 Dec 2010)

mariomike said:
			
		

> I am surprised to hear that.
> Since 1971 Toronto Police have been permitted to transport public inebriates to detox centres.



Yeah the detox center seems to be lock up lol.. Unless you aren't and idiot and you have someone willing to pick you up and take responsibility for you.


----------



## ModlrMike (3 Dec 2010)

In Manitoba we have the Intoxicated Persons Detention Act (IPDA). It allows police to transport people who are drunk (or stoned) to detention.


----------



## mariomike (3 Dec 2010)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> In Manitoba we have the Intoxicated Persons Detention Act  (IPDA). It allows police to transport people who are drunk (or stoned) to detention.



In Ontario, Detention Centres are provincial jails. 

Manitoba: Intoxicated Persons Detention Act: "Where a peace officer takes a person into custody under subsection (1), if there is a detoxication centre in the community, the peace officer may take the person to the detoxication centre and deliver him into the custody of the person in charge of the detoxication centre.":
http://web2.gov.mb.ca/laws/statutes/ccsm/i090e.php

Edited for spelling.


----------



## bekkamgov (3 Dec 2010)

In NB they call it sec 2 and they go to detention, but sometimes they are nice and drive them home or let them find a drive home once they get to detention but usually they only do that for first timers.


----------



## crooks.a (3 Dec 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> It is not possible now, in BC, to have even 1 drink and be assured that you won't be nailed by this STUPID law. I'm all for hammering folks that are clearly intoxicated and driving, but this punishes those that are acting responsibly (according to most I think), and not the chronic drunk driver.


The new addition is definitely ridiculous. The people killing others because of drunk driving will not be the ones driving around at <0.08. The law is not going to discourage the alcoholics from drinking (the old one didn't), all it is going to do is prevent the law-abiding citizens from going out after work and having a beer.

Unfortunately, the other side effect that this is causing is all of the pubs that now have to close down because their income has seen a significant drop.


----------



## Rafterman1 (3 Dec 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> That's a great idea! What's the name/location of the pub?



Yeah, quite a few people use it.  I see less and less vehicles at the pub when I go to get pie eyed :cheers:.  The name of the joint is The Westsyder Pub in Kamloops.


----------



## Container (3 Dec 2010)

Brutus said:
			
		

> A friend of mine just got nailed under the new BC Provincial MVA drinking and driving law. For those of you unfamiliar, if you are caught with a blood-alcohol content of 0.05-0.07 (the Crim Code limit being 0.08), you get a mandatory:
> 
> 30 day impound of your car (~$800)
> 90 day suspension of your DL ($150 re-licencing fee at the end)
> ...



Hi Brutus- I see what youre saying here but rest assured you will not blow 0.05. Its not physically possible. A beer or one ounce of liquor and hour will raise you about 0.01 and thats ABOUT the same rate you clear alcohol. Its been a while since my courses so this cant be taken as gospel but its around this area. I recall on my course I drank a ridiculous amount of alcohol over an house and I still couldnt hit the legal limit. You are significantly imparied at 0.08. You are dangerous according to studies after 0.05. The criminal code section was designed before the vast majority of those studies were completed so the limit hasnt been updated. 

Now since you kinda just get screwed when you blow 0.05 to 0.08 with these new laws I dont really support them. In my active drunk driver chasing years buddy got a 24 hour notice and a ride home. It seemed like it worked fine to me, of course thats personal opinion. The chronic offenders are always at 0.2- always. 9am or 9pm. These types of laws dont seem like they target the guys that they need to.

But my point is that you can still have a beer after work and not get nailed. As for the public intox- if you arent a danger to yourself or others, and there is someone at home who can take care of you you shouldnt wind up picked up for public intox.

If you are screaming at the moon or punching signs as young service people often do for some reason you cant expect police attention. LOL. I know I got it when I was in and I acted that way. Be polite say "I have cab money and a cellphone and a room mate at my house. Im going to bed. Sorry" and 90% youll be good to go. Thats how I get away with massive drukenness when Im on vacation anyways. And it works on me when im working. All of this shouldnt be taken as legal advice as the numbers vary by body type and gender. The police vary by night and personality. Its just in general. Dont call me to court to defend you lol!!


----------



## mariomike (3 Dec 2010)

love_my_soldier said:
			
		

> In NB they call it sec 2 and they go to detention, but sometimes they are nice and drive them home or let them find a drive home once they get to detention but usually they only do that for first timers.



It's about protecting people at risk. There is liability involved if left lying in the gutter. 
Transport either by ambulance to a hospital, or if  mobile, over the age of 16, and their condition may be safely managed in a non-medical setting, by police to a detox centre, if available, or police station. 
Read about the Davies Commission in British Columbia. The Frank Paul Inquiry has been going on since 1998, and is not yet over. They are still talking about criminal charges:
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/top-legal-officials-to-testify-at-davies-commission/article1781769/


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> Hi Brutus- I see what youre saying here but rest assured you will not blow 0.05. Its not physically possible. A beer or one ounce of liquor and hour will raise you about 0.01 and thats ABOUT the same rate you clear alcohol. Its been a while since my courses so this cant be taken as gospel but its around this area. I recall on my course I drank a ridiculous amount of alcohol over an house and I still couldnt hit the legal limit. You are significantly imparied at 0.08. You are dangerous according to studies after 0.05. The criminal code section was designed before the vast majority of those studies were completed so the limit hasnt been updated.



 So you know, different people have different processing capabilities. This is in no way true for the majority of the population. 
For evidence, my university Drama society held a 'test your breath' night a few years back. The idea was to help people realize what their limits were and how fast you could reach them. Alcohol and a breathalizer was provided, and you would drink then blow a half hour or so after you finished each drink. (games and movies went on in the meantime)

 One girl hit .06 after having one rum and coke. I didn't hit .05 until about four beer in. The kidneys operate very differently in different people and so the rate you can metabolize alcohol is very different.

 This law, and it recently had an equivilant pass here in Halifax .05 is the new legal limit I believe? (If someone knows the exact law feel free to share) down from .08. 

 I would argue that it is ridiculous simply on the grounds of it simply stops people who used to drink responsibly from drinking at all and does nothing to those who would not that they did not already have coming. If you are going to drink and drive and not care, chances are your BA is going to be significantly higher then .05-.08.


----------



## Container (4 Dec 2010)

"So you know"  That runs contrary to the vast majority of studies.  That one lady would be the exception to the rule- and there are people for whatever reason fail to metabolize alcohol at the same rate as everyone else. How would I be able to speak for every person on the planet?

The overwhelming majority of people metabolize between 10 and 20 mg% of alcohol an hour. Gender and body size affecting the results.
Science says that people metabolize in general between 10 and 20.

http://www2.potsdam.edu/hansondj/DrivingIssues/1127227453.html

Its interesting but of no value what happened at "know your breath" night in university.


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> "So you know"  That runs contrary to the vast majority of studies.  That one lady would be the exception to the rule- and there are people for whatever reason fail to metabolize alcohol at the same rate as everyone else. How would I be able to speak for every person on the planet?
> 
> The overwhelming majority of people metabolize between 10 and 20 mg% of alcohol an hour. Gender and body size affecting the results.
> Science says that people metabolize in general between 10 and 20.


]

 Could you give a reference to some of these studies?


----------



## Container (4 Dec 2010)

There is a reference in my previous post. Could you post one reference for your assertion that what is accepted as fact by courts and experts in forensic science is wrong.

http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_and_nutrition/page2.htm (7mg% to 14mg% at 150 pounds per hour.)
http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih3/alcohol/guide/info-alcohol.htm (Same)


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Dec 2010)

What really irritates me is MADD wants the law to read that the police can pull you over anytime they want, without cause.  I agree that drunk drivers are a menace, but MADD's proposal flies in the face of the Charter.


----------



## Kat Stevens (4 Dec 2010)

I recently joined DAMM; Drunks Against Mad Mothers


----------



## Container (4 Dec 2010)

Jim-

Sorry to insert myself again. I believe the MADD suggestion is that the police can give you a roadside screening device demand at any time. Not just to pull you over. Police can already do that. Any vehicle operating on a public roadway can be pulled over for document, license and insurance checks. Now MADD wants it to be okay for them to check your documents and give you a roadside screening device demand.

Its completely unneccesssary and lazy. Right now the demand threshhold is "reasonable SUSPICION" that there is blood in the drivers system. Thats a pretty low thresh hold to meet. I would suggest that this proposal just inconvieniences drivers, alienates the public, and really doesnt add anything. I told the rep who gave us a presentation the same thing. Most cops I know are about 50/50 on the subject.

Id suggest that if MADD wanted to make a difference they would target judges for letting drivers go on solid cases instead of the kinda no clear direction strategy they have now.

I found this:

http://www.madd.ca/english/news/pr/p20101005.htm


----------



## OldSolduer (4 Dec 2010)

No problem, I stand corrected, I think..... 

The intrusion of government into our everyday lives is a significant issue that few have picked up on.


----------



## Container (4 Dec 2010)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> No problem, I stand corrected, I think.....
> 
> The intrusion of government into our everyday lives is a significant issue that few have picked up on.



And people keep demanding more! Everybody who disagrees with someone wants the government to help them get rid of it- no matter what. End result, since somebody always hates something, is the government being requested to get involved in everything.


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> There is a reference in my previous post. Could you post one reference for your assertion that what is accepted as fact by courts and experts in forensic science is wrong.
> 
> http://www.medicinenet.com/alcohol_and_nutrition/page2.htm (7mg% to 14mg% at 150 pounds per hour.)
> http://science.education.nih.gov/supplements/nih3/alcohol/guide/info-alcohol.htm (Same)



 I apologize, I missed the link. The source of information in my post is, as stated, first hand participation in a demonstration regarding the effects of raising blood alcohol in relation to drinking.

 Having gone through the references you provided, there is no facts presented on how fast alcohol raises the BAC. There is much on how it is absorbed, how fast it is metabolized, but little to none I found on the relation of an amount of alcohol consumed to the concurrent BAC.

 The quote I found most interesting was from your first reference, " A healthy liver oxidizes pure ethanol at the rate of about ¼ to ⅓ of an ounce per hour, which is less than 1 ounce of hard liquor." Which suggests that in fact you cannot metabolize one ounce of rum (mmm rum) in the course of an hour. 

 This being said your original proposition that it is impossible to blow .05% after consuming one drink can not be concluded. Additionally in the last reference you provided a chart giving general behaviour concurrent with blood alcohol content is given. Within the .06-.10 range is explained as a state of "Pleasure Numbness of feelings, Nausea, Sleepiness, Emotional arousal" with some impaired coordination.  It infers that depth perception, reasoning, inappropriate social behaviour, slurred speech, lack of balance and other things all occur after the mark of 0.1%. That being said it alternately proposes that judgement and alertness can be affected at as low as .01%. 

 All this aside, the only part of your post I disagreed with was the impossibility of blowing .05% after one drink. I have seen it done first hand after all. 


 Another aspect I find interesting about the possible fallout of this law is public transit. If the driver is responsible for drunks on the Vehicle and them hurting theirselves the downtown culture of Halifax is going to bleed, and our free busses on New years and St. Paddys day are probably going to stop. I wonder if an exception would be made for public transit?


----------



## Journeyman (4 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> ...is "reasonable SUSPICION" that there is blood in the drivers system.


Damn straight -- keep those zombie drivers off the road!   ;D


Oh, and I'm a member of BADD (Bikers Against Dumb Drivers  :nod:  )


----------



## Container (4 Dec 2010)

Do you always use bafflegab when you are wrong?

How fast the BAC rises would be directly related to the absorption rate. Alcohol goes in, gets absorbed across the membrane and is in the blood. Once in the blood the BAC goes up.

Lets do this- proviide me a reference for your position that isnt university students watching movies with an instrument and I'll consider it. I've testified in court on these matters. I have taken hundreds of breath samples, investigated hundreds of drunk drivers, taken several courses, am a prior instructor in this area.

You got drunk at school.


----------



## old medic (4 Dec 2010)

Well, here is the follow up to the original post and civil suit :

Ontario Superior Court decision, Inga Richardson  v.  Joey Sanayhie, 2010 ONSC 3000 which was released on May 26, 2010.


In November, 2007 Inga Richardson and her common-law spouse, Joey Sanayhie were invited to a house party. Ms. Richardson planned on drinking at the party and Mr. Sanayhie agreed to be her “designated driver”.

Once at the party, Ms. Richardson drank alot of alchohol and became intoxicated.  As promised, Mr. Sanayhie, as the “designated driver” drove Ms. Richardson home. As this couple were being driven by Mr. Sanayhie, they began to argue.

As the argument increased, Ms. Richardson threatened to jump out of the moving motor vehicle. In response to this threat from his spouse, Mr. Sanayhie continued to drive on the streets of Oshawa and did not slow down or stop the vehicle, which this couple travelled in.

Unfortunately, a drunken Ms. Richardson followed through on her threat and jumped from the moving car. Subsequent to the jump from the car, Ms. Richardson sustained catastrophic injuries to her body and suffered severe brain damage.

After the assessment of the damage that Ms. Richardson sustained; Ms. Richardson launched a civil law suit against her common-law spouse, Mr. Joey Sanayhie.

Ms. Richardson suggested, through her lawsuit, that Mr. Sanayhie had breached his numerous duties of care as the “designated driver”. The lawsuit suggests that Mr. Sanayhie, as the “designated driver” should have supervised her drinking at the house party and prevented her from jumping out of the car, during the ride home on the Oshawa street.

On May 17, 2010 the defendant, Mr. Sanayhie and his counsel, John J.Adair appeared in the Ontario Superior Court in front to Justice Edward Belobaba with a motion under rule 21.01(1)(a) to strike those paragraphs that allege that Mr. Sanayhie, as designated driver, was required to monitor and control Inga’s consumption of alcohol at the party and generally supervise her behaviour. In failing to do so, he breached a duty of care and was negligent.

After listening to the defendant’s motion, Justice Edward Belobaba wrote the following:

” The focus here is on that portion of the pleading that would impose on a designated driver, in the absence of any special agreement, a general duty to supervise and control the alcohol consumption of his passengers and generally ensure that every passenger gets home safely. The defendant says that there is no such duty in law and for good reason. The imposition of these additional duties to monitor and control the passenger’s alcohol consumption would discourage people from ever agreeing to be a designated driver. This would not be in the public interest. The defendant submits that the impugned paragraphs do not disclose a reasonable cause of action and should be struck.

I agree with the defendant. In my view, there is no chance that a sensible trier of fact would impose such duties on a designated driver. The impugned paragraphs are certain to fail. The motion to strike is granted.”

Justice Edward Belobaba also wrote:

” Joey did not invite Inga to subject herself to a risk that he created or controlled. There is no evidence that the relationship between Joey and Inga was one in which Joey exercised power and control over a vulnerable and dependent spouse or that Inga reasonably relied on Joey to supervise and control her alcohol intake whenever they went out to a party.”

” The fact that Joey and Inga were living together does not mean that Joey, as the designated driver, had a duty to monitor and curtail Inga’s consumption of alcohol. There is no evidence of any specific discussion or agreement wherein Joey promised to do so. Absent such agreement, Joey was under no obligation to monitor and limit Inga’s alcohol consumption.”


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> Do you always use bafflegab when you are wrong?
> 
> How fast the BAC rises would be directly related to the absorption rate. Alcohol goes in, gets absorbed across the membrane and is in the blood. Once in the blood the BAC goes up.
> 
> ...



 Do you always resort to an insulting tone when someone is disagreeing with you? Tch.

 http://www.princeton.edu/uhs/healthy-living/hot-topics/alcohol/ states "BAC stands for Blood Alcohol Content, and is the number of milligrams of alcohol per milliliter in your bloodstream. In New Jersey, the legal definition of drunkenness is a BAC of 0.08.

If you are a 120 lb. woman who drinks four drinks in one hour, your BAC will be 0.17. If you are a 160 lb. man who consumes 5 drinks in one hour, your BAC will be 0.14. Of 100 people with a BAC greater than 0.4, statistics show that one will die."

0.17/4= .0425 meaning simply one drink can raise a 120lb woman to .425 Bac. Subtract 20lbs make that woman 100lbs and it is easily possible. Especially depending on the drink being consumed. .0425/.0075=5.6666...  A drink would only have to be 1/5.6th larger than what they were using in this study for that woman to have reached .05% in one drink. If the drink is a cocktail that is only 200-250 ml the required increase in the glass needs only to be 44ml larger to achieve this.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Dec 2010)

old medic said:
			
		

> Well, here is the follow up....


Does that not refer simply to the first portion of the suit (DD responsible for drinker's behaviour at party), but still leave the crux of the matter (DD responsible for drinker's behaviour while being driven *** ) unaddressed? 

That's how I'm reading it anyway.



*** This bit:


			
				GAP said:
			
		

> However, Judge Belobaba said that the critical question of whether Mr. Sanayhie was responsible for ensuring Ms. Richardson’s safety on the way home will be decided at a trial.


----------



## Container (4 Dec 2010)

Did you forget the part where I said it was in general and that there are some exceptions such 100 pound females with poor liver function and that it cannot possibly be 100 percent for the entire population.

Furthermore the idea that you can just divide the BAC by four and then subtract weight is flawed. There are too many other factors involved besides weight. 

Again- you are far outside of reality. Im telling you that the accepted averages are 10mg% to 20mg%. There is no other answer. There are variables that can change it but its in the vicinity. 

As a side not im glad the judge made a good decision.


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> Did you forget the part where I said it was in general and that there are some exceptions such 100 pound females with poor liver function and that it cannot possibly be 100 percent for the entire population.
> 
> Furthermore the idea that you can just divide the BAC by four and then subtract weight is flawed. There are too many other factors involved besides weight.
> 
> ...



 Failing us getting together and performing an empirical test then, I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree my friend.


----------



## old medic (4 Dec 2010)

I'll dig (search) around a bit. 

this is in there also, which I think is what we're after: 



> In addition to this portion of the suit being struck, counsel agreed, on consent, to an order also to go to striking paragraph 7 and that portion of paragraph 12 that refers to the Occupier’s Liability Act. Counsel agree that occupier’s liability is not a viable basis for the plaintiff’s claim.



I don't know enough about the claim and the mentioned act.


----------



## Container (4 Dec 2010)

NSDreamer said:
			
		

> Failing us getting together and performing an empirical test then, I guess we shall just have to agree to disagree my friend.



HAHA! ;D

I'll get the beer....I mean the "variables".


----------



## NSDreamer (4 Dec 2010)

Container said:
			
		

> HAHA! ;D
> 
> I'll get the beer....I mean the "variables".



  :cheers:


----------

