EDITORIAL — No longer responsible

Following the death of a 23-year-old businessman after a vehicular accident in Barangay Banilad, Cebu City, that may yet involve drunk driving, a city councilor now wants to hold establishments serving alcoholic drinks accountable for when someone whom they served liquor later causes injury, death, or property damage.

As per the proposed ordinance, Councilor Harold Kendrick Go wants criminal liability for owners, managers, bartenders, servers, or employees who still serve alcoholic drinks to already-intoxicated customers who subsequently cause harm within six hours of leaving the premises.

We understand that Councilor Go wants to protect more people from drunk driving incidents, but to hold drinking establishments responsible for the actions of their patrons after they have left --no matter what state or condition they are in-- is just ridiculous.

It’s like holding gun shops responsible for when someone legally buys a gun then goes on a shooting rampage. The gun owner is to blame for his actions, and not the gun store.

It’s like holding a hardware store responsible for when someone buys a hammer then hits his neighbor with it. The buyer of the hammer is to blame for his actions, and not the hardware store.

We can think of other examples, but we think you get the point. What someone does after they leave a gun store, a hardware store, or a bar is already beyond the control of that gun store, hardware store, bar, or whatever establishment they get something from. It’s totally on them now; they become responsible for their actions.

Given what Councilor Go wants to happen, aside from cutting off already-intoxicated patrons, are drinking establishments --threatened with being responsible for what their customers do later on-- also encouraged to stop them from driving or causing harm in any way possible? To what extent?

Don’t get us wrong here; we aren’t trying to protect the suspect or encourage drunk driving. In fact, we are against it and we need better procedures and enforcement of the law against drunk driving.

It’s just that we don’t think it’s fair to pass on the burden of responsibility to drinking establishments if someone made a bad decision and caused injury, death, or property damage.