I wonder if there is a flaw in your reasoning.

In the case of showing up to work drunk, the drunk employee cannot perform their duties. Presumably somebody else will need to do the duties the drunk employee is unable to do.  So, the drunk is doing something to the company for which they work since they can’t depend on him.  Indirectly, the drunk may also be hurting coworkers.

In the case of the drunk driving example, someone is killed.  So the drunk driver also hurts someone.

But in the case of the woman involved in this trial, as far as I can see, she didn’t do anything to anyone.  She simply got drink.  That in and of itself hurts nobody.    So then she didn’t hurt anyone (unlike the employee and drunk driver) but it appears that maybe the taxi driver hurt her.