7.13 NEGLIGENCE – INTOXICATION Civil Model Jury Charge (Approved 5/91)
A. In
General
A
person who voluntarily has become intoxicated is required to act with the same
care as a person who is sober. So long
as such a person who is voluntarily intoxicated acts with the same degree of
care for her/his own safety which an ordinary careful and sober person would
exercise under the same or similar circumstances, then the intoxicated person
is not comparatively negligent. But if
you find that, by reason of her/his own voluntary abuse of intoxicating liquor,
the plaintiff exposed herself/himself to a dangerous situation and sustained
bodily injuries which a sober person in the exercise of ordinary foresight and
care would have avoided, then you find that the voluntary intoxicated person
has acted negligently.
NOTE TO JUDGE
It has been held
that negligence is not necessarily to be inferred from proof of intoxication
and that a drunken person may be careful.
Bageard v. Consolidated Traction Co., 64 N.J.L. 316 (E. &
A. 1900).
Cases:
Petrone v. Margolis, 20 N.J. Super. 180, 188 (App.
Div. 1952); Bowman v. C.R.R. of N.J., 27 N.J. Super. 370
(App. Div. 1953).
B. Riding with Intoxicated Driver
A passenger in an automobile must act
with appropriate care for her/his own safety as the demands of the situation
reasonably require. To determine whether
or not the plaintiff was negligent by voluntarily riding in a motor vehicle
which was operated by an intoxicated person, you must decide whether an ordinary
cautious and careful person, under the same or similar circumstances, would
have risked riding with the driver. You
must consider three factual issues:
1. Did the plaintiff voluntarily ride in an
automobile operated by a person under the influence of intoxicating
liquor/drugs after the plaintiff knew, or, in the exercise of reasonable care,
should have known, of the driver's condition?
2. Would a reasonably cautious and careful
person have avoided the risk of riding with such a driver under the same or
similar circumstances?
3. Was the intoxication of the driver a
substantial contributing cause of the incident and the resulting injuries?
If the answer to the three questions is yes, then
the plaintiff was comparatively negligent.
If you answer any of the three questions no, then the plaintiff was not
comparatively negligent.
Cases:
