. I, however, argued that when a person gets drunk, ALL kailim in the city are considered "etzlo" - near him. Because unlike a sleeping person who lacks mobility, a drunk person is mobile, and even though he's no longer a bar daas, he put himself in that situation where he can damage everything in his city.
The argument would be that he’s considered a shota, which isn’t the case of a sleeping person.
The bach in a tshuva, in response to someone trying to absolve himself of damages because he was drunk, says this:
The crime is choosing to get drunk in the first place without ensuring there are safeguards in place.
Wondering if this is the logic from a secular law perspective. I assume it’s along those lines.
This would be interesting to know what secular law should say about:
If a person sleep walks and damages or hurts property or people in their sleep, should they be liable?
