In the case of Stopko v. Cobbs, No. 2:25-CV-00074-CB (W.D. Pa. Dec. 31, 2025 Bissoon, J.), the court addressed the issue of the liability of renters of cars and issues surrounding the Dram Shop statute.
According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant rented a vehicle from a Co-Defendant company. T
The Plaintiff alleged that the Co-Defendant company did not perform any background check on the Defendant driver or review the Defendant driver’s driver’s history before renting him the vehicle. The Plaintiff alleged that, if the rental company had done so, they would have discovered that the Defendant driver should not have been entrusted with the rental vehicle.
The Plaintiff further alleged that, on the date of the accident, the Defendant driver went to a bar where he was allegedly served alcohol, including allegedly being served after he was allegedly visibly intoxicated.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant driver then got into the vehicle that he had rented from the rental company and drove it, while intoxicated, the wrong way on the roadway, colliding in a head-on fashion with the Plaintiff.
In this decision, the court was addressing Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants with respect to allegations of negligence against the rental car company and with respect to the Defendant owners of the bar where the Defendant driver was drinking on the night of the accident.
The court granted the rental car company’s Motion to Dismiss after finding that the Plaintiff’s allegations were both factually and legally insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court noted that the Plaintiff’s entire theory of liability rested on the allegation that the rental car company should have performed a background check on the Defendant driver or investigated his driver’s history before renting him the vehicle. The Plaintiff alleged that, due to these failures, the Defendant rental car company was negligent in entrusting the driver with the vehicle.
The court found that the Plaintiff had only pled conclusory statements regarding the Defendant driver’s driver’s history in support of these allegations. The court noted that no facts regarding the actual driver’s history appeared anywhere in the Complaint. The court held that, without more, the Plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts to support the claim stated.
The court otherwise noted that lessors of vehicles are not liable for a lessee’s negligent driving, unless the lessor was negligent in leasing or renting the vehicle to a person they had reason to know was incompetent to drive the vehicle.
The Plaintiff further alleged that, on the date of the accident, the Defendant driver went to a bar where he was allegedly served alcohol, including allegedly being served after he was allegedly visibly intoxicated.
The Plaintiff alleged that the Defendant driver then got into the vehicle that he had rented from the rental company and drove it, while intoxicated, the wrong way on the roadway, colliding in a head-on fashion with the Plaintiff.
In this decision, the court was addressing Motions to Dismiss filed by the Defendants with respect to allegations of negligence against the rental car company and with respect to the Defendant owners of the bar where the Defendant driver was drinking on the night of the accident.
The court granted the rental car company’s Motion to Dismiss after finding that the Plaintiff’s allegations were both factually and legally insufficient to state a claim upon which relief may be granted.
The court noted that the Plaintiff’s entire theory of liability rested on the allegation that the rental car company should have performed a background check on the Defendant driver or investigated his driver’s history before renting him the vehicle. The Plaintiff alleged that, due to these failures, the Defendant rental car company was negligent in entrusting the driver with the vehicle.
The court found that the Plaintiff had only pled conclusory statements regarding the Defendant driver’s driver’s history in support of these allegations. The court noted that no facts regarding the actual driver’s history appeared anywhere in the Complaint. The court held that, without more, the Plaintiff had failed to plead sufficient facts to support the claim stated.
The court otherwise noted that lessors of vehicles are not liable for a lessee’s negligent driving, unless the lessor was negligent in leasing or renting the vehicle to a person they had reason to know was incompetent to drive the vehicle.
The court also noted that there was no basis under Pennsylvania law to interpret this standard to impose a duty on rental car companies to investigate a driver’s history before renting a vehicle to them.
The court also noted that other Pennsylvania courts have only considered lessors liable for the harm caused by a lessee’s intoxicated driving when the lessee was intoxicated at the time the vehicle was entrusted to the driver, or where the lessor had reason to know that the driver would later drink and drive. Such was not the case under the facts presented in this matter.
The court noted that, where lessees or drivers unexpectedly become intoxicated later unbeknownst to the lessor or owner of the vehicle, other courts had found that the owners and/or lessors are not liable for the injuries caused by the driver.
Relative to the separate claims against the liquor license holder for the bar and the owner of the bar, the court found that there was no basis in Pennsylvania law to support and argument by the Plaintiff that there is a duty on such Defendants, that is, bars and taverns, to prevent visibly intoxicated patrons from leaving the establishment without safe transportation, to offer alternative transportation, or to contact friends or family of the intoxicated customer.
The court also noted that other Pennsylvania courts have only considered lessors liable for the harm caused by a lessee’s intoxicated driving when the lessee was intoxicated at the time the vehicle was entrusted to the driver, or where the lessor had reason to know that the driver would later drink and drive. Such was not the case under the facts presented in this matter.
The court noted that, where lessees or drivers unexpectedly become intoxicated later unbeknownst to the lessor or owner of the vehicle, other courts had found that the owners and/or lessors are not liable for the injuries caused by the driver.
Relative to the separate claims against the liquor license holder for the bar and the owner of the bar, the court found that there was no basis in Pennsylvania law to support and argument by the Plaintiff that there is a duty on such Defendants, that is, bars and taverns, to prevent visibly intoxicated patrons from leaving the establishment without safe transportation, to offer alternative transportation, or to contact friends or family of the intoxicated customer.
This court noted that there was no Pennsylvania or federal appellate court decisions in the Third Circuit that appeared to have directly addressed this issue. However, the court pointed to an unreported Eastern District court decision in which that court found that there was no basis in Pennsylvania law to impose a duty on an alcohol licensee or its agents to prevent an intoxicated patron from operating a motor vehicle.
Relative to the separate argument by the Defendants that all of the Plaintiff’s common law negligence claims should be dismissed because the Pennsylvania Dram Shop Act restricts liability for liquor licensees only to those duties imposed by the Act, the court stated that there was a lack of consensus among the Pennsylvania courts on the exclusivity of the Act. As such, this court attempted to anticipate how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule if faced with this issue.
In the end, this court noted that the Dram Shop Act imposes a statutorily created duty on liquor licensees not to sell alcohol to visibly intoxicated customers and that the breach of such a duty constitutes negligence per say under the Act. This court noted that, once this duty is breached, “it does not stand to reason that [the Dram Shop Act] should shield licensees from all derivative common law liability for their actions in breaching it, including the negligent supervision that led to the breach.” See Op. at 12. Accordingly, the court allowed the Plaintiff’s common law negligence claim to proceed.
This court otherwise ruled that there was support under Pennsylvania law to also allow a claim against a landlord to go forward under an allegation that the landlord may be liable for injuries caused by their tenants’ intoxicated business invitees when the landlord knew, at the time of the lease, that the tenant would sell alcohol on the property, and later, that tenant was doing so improperly. As such, the court in this case allowed the claims against the landlord Defendant to proceed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm of Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Rauch P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.
Relative to the separate argument by the Defendants that all of the Plaintiff’s common law negligence claims should be dismissed because the Pennsylvania Dram Shop Act restricts liability for liquor licensees only to those duties imposed by the Act, the court stated that there was a lack of consensus among the Pennsylvania courts on the exclusivity of the Act. As such, this court attempted to anticipate how the Pennsylvania Supreme Court would rule if faced with this issue.
In the end, this court noted that the Dram Shop Act imposes a statutorily created duty on liquor licensees not to sell alcohol to visibly intoxicated customers and that the breach of such a duty constitutes negligence per say under the Act. This court noted that, once this duty is breached, “it does not stand to reason that [the Dram Shop Act] should shield licensees from all derivative common law liability for their actions in breaching it, including the negligent supervision that led to the breach.” See Op. at 12. Accordingly, the court allowed the Plaintiff’s common law negligence claim to proceed.
This court otherwise ruled that there was support under Pennsylvania law to also allow a claim against a landlord to go forward under an allegation that the landlord may be liable for injuries caused by their tenants’ intoxicated business invitees when the landlord knew, at the time of the lease, that the tenant would sell alcohol on the property, and later, that tenant was doing so improperly. As such, the court in this case allowed the claims against the landlord Defendant to proceed.
Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.
I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh office of the law firm of Summers McDonnell Hudock Guthrie & Rauch P.C. for bringing this case to my attention.
Source of image: Photo by Brett Jordan on www.pexels.com.
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.