Pennsylvania Superior Court Reaffirms Ruling - No Duty On Valet Service to Withhold Keys From Drunk Driver

In its June 10, 2015 decision in the case of Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, d/b/a Mohegan Sun at Pocono Downs, 2015 Pa. Super. 137 (Pa. Super. June 10, 2015 en banc) (Majority Opinion by Panella, J.) (Dissenting Opinion by Mundy, J., joined by Bender, P.J.E. and Donahue, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court ruled that valet parkers have no obligation to withhold the keys from drunken drivers.  

 In this matter, the Plaintiff was asserting that the Mohegan Sun Pocono Casino was negligent when a valet returned the keys to a driver who was thereafter killed in a single vehicle accident just off the premises of the casino.   The decedent’s mother filed suit alleging that the casino was negligent in serving her son alcohol while he was visibly intoxicated and for given back the keys.  

The Defendant casino prevailed on a summary judgment motion at the trial court level.   The Pennsylvania Superior Court affirmed on the initial appeal back in June of 2014.   [Click HERE to view the Tort Talk Blog Posts to the trial court and initial Superior Court decisions].

 

With this en banc decision, the Pennsylvania Superior Court again affirmed the trial court’s ruling.  

In the majority Opinion, the court noted that, on this issue of first impression, it could not find that, as a matter of law, the casino “had the power, yet alone the duty, to withhold the decedent’s keys” under the circumstances presented.  

Reviewing analogous law under social host cases, as well as law from other jurisdictions, the court found that a parking lot attendant cannot be held liable for returning the car to an intoxicated owner, in part, because the attendant is required by law to return property on demand.   

The majority opinion written by Judge Jack A. Panella and joined in by President Judge Susan Peikes Gantman and Judges Kate Ford Elliott, Jacqueline O. Shogan, Judith Ference Olson and Paula Francisco Ott can be viewed HERE.

The dissenting opinion written by Judge Sallie Updyke Mundy and joined in by Judge John T. Bender and Judge Christine L. Donohue can be viewed HERE.

According a local news article on the decision, Plaintiff’s attorney noted an intention to appeal this novel issue to the Pennsylvania Supreme Court.

UPDATE:  In a February 25, 2016 Order, the Pennsylvania Supreme Court denied the Petition for Allowance of Appeal filed by the Plaintiff.  Click this LINK to view that Order.

No Liability for Valet Service for Returning Car to Visibly Intoxicated Patron

In its recent decision in the case of Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, 2014 Pa.Super. 128 (Pa.Super. June 24, 2014 Panella, J., Mundy, J., and Platt, J.)(Op. by Panella, J.), the Pennsylvania Superior Court held that Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty upon a casino's valet service to withhold the keys from a motorist if that person appears to be visibly intoxicated.

 

In so ruling the court upheld the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defense entered by Judge William H. Amesbury of the Luzerne County Court of Common Pleas and addressed the issue of first impression of the issue of the duty and ultimate liability of a valet service when a vehicle is returned to an allegedly intoxicated person.

 

The court found that no such duty exists under Pennsylvania law and reasoned that, even accepting as true the allegation that the Plaintiff's decedent was visibly intoxicated when he retrieved his vehicle from the valet service, Pennsylvania law did not impose any duty upon the casino or its valet service to withhold keys from a visibly intoxicated patron. 

 

Applying bailment law, the court noted that the valet service was, instead, duty bound to return the vehicle to its owner when requested.  Once the demand was made for the return of the car, the defendant no longer had control over the vehicle such that a duty could be imposed upon the valet service or the casino for returning the vehicle to a visibly intoxicated person.

 

I send thanks to Attorney Scott Cooper of the Harrisburg law firm of Schmidt Kramer, Attorney Brian Bevan of the Pittsburgh law firm of DiBella, Geer, McAllister & Best, P.C., and Attorney Walt McClatchy, Jr. of the Philadelphia law firm of McClatchy & Associates for bringing this case to my attention.

 

Anyone wishing to review this Opinion may click this LINK.