Company That Charged For Work Event At Which Alcohol Was Served Can't Be Held Liable Under Social Host Liability Theory

In the case of Klar v. Dairy Farmers of America, Inc., No. 29 WAP 2022 (Pa. Aug. 22, 2023 Wecht, J.), the Pennsylvania Supreme Court revisited precedents from over a half of a century that have imposed civil liability arising from the provision of alcohol to visibly intoxicated persons with respect to persons and entities licensed to engage in the commercial sale of alcohol while those precedents have also limited the liability of non-licensees and “social hosts.”

In this matter, Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed the decisions of the lower courts that held that an organization which hosted an event at which alcohol was provided, but which organization was not a liquor licensee, could not be held liable for injuries caused by a guest who had become intoxicated at the event and was later involved in a motor vehicle accident.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: Article - “Company That Charged For Work Event Can’t Be Held Liable for Guest’s Drunken Driving, Says Pa. High Court, By: Riley Brennan of the Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 24, 2023).

Dram Shop Act Found to Pre-Empt Common Law Negligence Claims Against Liquor Licensees Unless Unless Service to Visibily Intoxicated Person Proven

In the case of Murray v. Frick, No. 2021-CV-1254 (C.P. Leh. Co. May 2, 2022 Caffrey, J.), the court reasoned that, given the prior precedent defining §4-497 of the Pennsylvania Dram Shop Act as a limiting provision that protects a licensee from liability to third party unless the patron was visibly intoxicated, the court found that the provision operated to preempt common law negligence claims asserted by the Plaintiff against the Defendant liquor licensee. As such, the court sustained the Defendant’s Preliminary Objections in part.

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff alleges that he was injured in a motor vehicle accident that occurred when his vehicle was struck by a tortfeasor Defendant who ran a red light. The Plaintiff asserted that, prior to the accident, the tortfeasor Defendant driver had been drinking alcohol at two (2) different bars. As such, the Plaintiff asserted common law negligence claims against the owners of the bars.

The Defendants filed Preliminary Objections asserting that the allegations in the Plaintiff’s Complaint seeking to hold the Defendant liquor licensees as liable in common law negligence were legally insufficient as a matter of law. The Defendant company relied upon §4-497 of the Pennsylvania Liquor Code, that is, the Dram Shop Act, to assert that a claim against a licensee under the Dram Shop Act is the exclusive remedy available to a person who has been injured as a result of the sale of alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person.

The court in this matter found no appellate guidance on the issue of whether §4-497 preempts a common law negligence claim and noted a split of authority among the Courts of Common Pleas on the same. 

However, in reviewing the Pennsylvania Superior Court case of Detweiler v. Brumbaugh, in which that court described §4-497 as a liability limiting provision, this court reasoned that the provision should be construed as protecting a licensee from liability to third parties unless the patron at issue was served while visibly intoxicated.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (Aug. 23, 2022).

Source of image:  Photo by Tembela Bohle on www.pexels.com.

 

Liquor Liability Exclusion Found Not To Apply Against a Multi-Claim Complaint

In the case of AIX Specialty Ins. Co. v. American Legion Department of Pennsylvania, No. 2:21-CV-023380-MAK (E.D. Pa. March 14, 2022 Kearney, J.), the court addressed a declaratory judgment action regarding coverage potentially owed to an American Legion relative to an underlying personal injury claim filed by a Plaintiff who was injured by a gun shot wound in an American Legion after the assailant was allegedly served alcohol while that assailant was allegedly visibly intoxicated.

After the court’s review of the liquor liability exclusion contained in the policy and determined that certain claims asserted by the Plaintiff could potentially fall within such coverages allowed by the policy, the court found that the exclusion at issue did not apply in this matter involving a multi-claim complaint.

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.


Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (April 6, 2022).

Preliminary Objections Sustained Where Only Conclusory Allegations Set Forth in Dram Shop Action

In the case of Shultz v. Barnes, No. 18-CV-1308 (C.P. Lyc. Co. July 19, 2019 Linhardt, J.), the court sustained several Preliminary Objections filed by a Defendant in a liquor liability motor vehicle accident case given that the Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support various claims. 

According to the Opinion, the Plaintiff was the administrator of the estate of a decedent who was killed in a motor vehicle accident caused by a tortfeasor driver. The Plaintiff alleged that the tortfeasor driver was driving a motor vehicle under the influence of alcohol. 

In addition to suing the driver, the Complaint also identified the company that operated the bar where the tortfeasor driver was drinking prior to the accident as a defendant in this case. The owner and president of that bar was also listed as a defendant.  

 The Defendants filed various Preliminary Objections to the Complaint.  

The court sustained the Defendants’ Preliminary Objections to the count in the Complaint alleging a violation of the Dram Shop Act.  

The defense had argued that the Plaintiff had only provided conclusory allegations that the Defendants knew that the tortfeasor driver was visibly intoxicated while he was at the bar.   The court granted these Preliminary Objections and noted that it was not sufficient for a Plaintiff to simply allege that alcoholic beverages were served to patrons in order to support a Dram Shop action.  

The court noted that the Plaintiff failed to assert any facts regarding the physical appearance of the tortfeasor Defendant driver in terms of whether he was visibly intoxicated or not while he was served at the bar.   Although this Preliminary Objection was sustained, the Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint.  

Relative to the Preliminary Objections filed by the individual Defendant, the court found that the Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to pierce the corporate veil.   Again, the Plaintiff was granted an opportunity to file an Amended Complaint in this regard.  

The court also sustained Preliminary Objections to the Plaintiff’s wrongful death claim given that that claim was brought not only on the Plaintiff’s behalf but also on behalf of entities who were allegedly entitled to damages for reasonable hospital, nursing, and medical expenses, as well as funeral expenses, burial expenses and other losses.  The court noted that, under the Rules of Civil Procedure, such allegations were improper in a wrongful death claim.  As such, the Preliminary Objections in this regard were sustained.   Again, the Plaintiff was granted leave to file an Amended Complaint.

Lastly, the court also sustained Preliminary Objections to the allegations of recklessness and the claims for punitive damages under a finding that the Plaintiff failed to allege sufficient facts to support these allegations.   The court noted that, should discovery later reveal facts supporting an award of punitive damages on separate claims, the Plaintiff would be allowed to seek an amendment at that time.   

Anyone wishing to review a copy of this decision may click this LINK.

Source: “Digest of Recent Opinions.” Pennsylvania Law Weekly (August 27, 2019).    

Pennsylvania Supreme Court to Review Admissibility of Intoxication In Civil Litigation Context

In the case of Coughlin v. Massaquoi, No. 166 EAL 2016 (Pa. Aug. 24, 2016), the court granted a Petition for Allowance of Appeal to review the issue, as stated by the Plaintiff:

In a civil trial brought on behalf of a pedestrian who was killed by a motorist, is it reversible error where the Defendant motorist admits evidence of the pedestrian’s uncorroborated post-mortem blood alcohol content (BAC) by way of a toxicology expert who merely explains the uncorroborated BAC in terms of how and equivalent BAC would render an “average” person unfit to cross the street? 

The Tort Talk post on the non-precedential Superior Court decision in this case may be viewed HERE.

I send thanks to Attorney Joseph Hudock of the Pittsburgh law firm of Summers, McDonnell, Hudock & Guthrie for bringing this Order to my attention.  

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.