Should a court-adjudicated debt for a liability based on driving while intoxicated be dischargeable under bankruptcy laws’? Legislation introduced in Congress seeks to amend the Federal Bankruptcy Act to prevent-that possibility. The appoach seems sensible as well as timely in view of the current national antidrunk driving campaign. “The amendment will provide victims and their families with an assurance that if they win civil damages against a drunk driver, that person will not be able to use federal law to avoid paying his debt,” said Rep. John Seiberling, D-Ohio who introduced the bill in the House. Similar legislation originally was offered in the Senate by Sen. John C. Danforth, R-Mo. as 5.2159 aimed at remedying the bankruptcy abuse. Seiberling cited a case in which the family of a girl fatally injured by a drunk driver received a $110,000 court judgment for “wrongful death” and surviv0r’s compensation. However, the defendant is now attempting to file for bankruptcy, trying to have his judgment debt discharged by using the federal law. Such cases are distinctly different from the usual bankruptcy format and should not be addressed in the typical mode that involves credit, investment or payment for services. Current bankruptcy law does contain a provision which prohibits a debtor from discharging any debt he owes for wilIful and malicious injury. The problem, Seiberling pointsout, “is that some bankruptcy judges have concluded that drunk driving is not wilIful and malicious.” He detailed a case in which a judge did indeed bold a court-ordered judgment nondischargeable under that provision. A plaintiff, accosted by a defendant who was intoxicated, obtained a judgment for $50,000 in actual damages. The debtor’s defense was that he suffered an alcoholic blackout. But the court held he had acted with malicious intent. “While that case involves an assault rather than a car accident,” Seiberling asserts, “it seems to highlight the need to classify tortious acts committed while intoxicated as wilIful and malicious.” The proposed amendment would serve a good purpose if it unifies bankruptcy judges’ interpretation of the law and restores faith in the principle that a person who recklessly kills or causes serious injury cannot use bankruptcy law to escape a just punishment and restitution.