Source: https://casetext.com/case/klein-v-raysinger
Timestamp: 2020-06-02 11:20:42
Document Index: 16645906

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1714', '§ 2', '§ 340', '§ 123', '§ 2', '§ 4', '§ 11', '§ 447', '§ 440', '§ 4', '§ 102', '§ 1921', '§ 286', '§ 286', '§ 104', '§ 4']

Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141 | Casetext Search + Citator
Jefferis v. Com
We agree with Judge Garth's opinion in that case, and employ much of his reasoning here. It is the duty of…
Brandjord v. Hopper
Id. By contrast, Punch, Campbell, and Costello are all adults. Thus, in the eyes of the law, they are…
Full title:Michael KLEIN, Appellant v. Mark RAYSINGER, 600 Corp. t/a Neptune Inn…
504 Pa. 141 (Pa. 1983)
noting that a second negligent actor is not a superseding cause if the second actor's conduct was not highly extraordinary
Summary of this case from Watts v. Hollock
Appeal from the Court of Common Pleas, Montgomery County, Civil Division, No. 80-7334, Salus, J.
John Paul Curran, Philadelphia, for Michael Klein.
This appeal involves the consolidated cases of Klein v. Raysinger, et al., 44 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1982; and Myron Klein, Phillip Klein, and Myron Klein, Administrator of the Estate of Klein v. Raysinger et al., 94 Eastern District Appeal Docket 1982.
Superior Court's decision in this case is reported at 298 Pa. Super. 246, 444 A.2d 753 (1982).
The Superior Court's decision in this case is reported at 302 Pa. Super. 248, 448 A.2d 620 (1982).
Appellant in No. 44, Michael Klein, filed a personal injury action against Mark Raysinger and others, as a result of an automobile accident. Appellants in No. 94, Myron and Phillip Klein, filed personal injury actions against Mark Raysinger and others (including Michael Klein, as the driver of the vehicle in which they were travelling); and Myron Klein as the Administrator of the Estate of Shirley M. Klein, filed a personal injury action, a wrongful death action, and a survivors action against Mark Raysinger and others (including Michael Klein, as the driver of the vehicle in which Shirley M. Klein was travelling). As part of these actions the Kleins instituted suit against Mr. and Mrs. William Gilligan and their son Michael Gilligan, who were charged with negligence in serving one or more alcoholic beverages to Raysinger at a time when the latter was visibly intoxicated.
The relevant allegations of the complaints read as follows:
In each case the Gilligans filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer. In both instances the preliminary objections were sustained by the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County. On appeal the Superior Court affirmed. Petitions for allowance of appeal were filed and granted, and the cases were consolidated for our review.
See fn. 1 and fn. 2, supra.
A third case, Congini et al. v. Portersville Valve Co., No. 53 Western District Appeal Dkt. 1983, was also consolidated with these cases. However, Congini, involves a distinct fact pattern, necessitating a separate opinion.
Although the lower courts relied in part on Manning v. Andy, 454 Pa. 237, 310 A.2d 75 (1973), this case is in reality one of first impression in this jurisdiction. Appellants are requesting this Court to recognize a new cause of action in negligence, against a social host who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, whom the host knows, or should know, intends to drive a motor vehicle.
In Manning we held only that Section 493(1) of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. 4-493(1), did not create a cause of action against non-licensed persons who furnish intoxicants for no renumeration. We did not decide the issue of whether a non-licensed host could be subject to a cause of action in negligence. See Concurring Opinion of Mr. Justice Pomeroy. Id., 454 Pa. at 240, 310 A.2d at 76.
In Coulter v. Superior Court of San Mateo, 21 Cal. 3rd 144, 145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 577 P.2d 669 (1979) the California Supreme Court held that under modern negligence law "a social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person, under circumstances which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to others, may be held legally accountable to those third parties who are injured when that harm occurs." Id. at 147, 145 Cal.Rptr. at 535, 577 P.2d at 670. However, this cause of action was very short lived, as the California Legislature expressly abrogated this holding by enacting Section 1714 of the California Civil Code. See Cory v. Shierloh, 29 Cal.3d 430, 174 Cal.Rptr. 500, 629 P.2d 8 (1981) (upholding the validity of § 1714 against a constitutional challenge).
Section 1714 of the California Civil Code provides:
Civil Code section 1714 (as amended by Stats. 1978, ch. 929, § 2, p. 2904) provides:
(b) It is the intent of the Legislature to abrogate the holdings in cases such as Vesely v. Sager, ( 5 Cal.3d 153), [ 95 Cal.Rptr. 623, 486 P.2d 151], Bernhard v. Harrah's Club, ( 16 Cal.3d 313), [ 128 Cal.Rptr. 215, 546 P.2d 719], and Coulter v. Superior Court, ([21] Cal.3d [144]), [ 145 Cal.Rptr. 534, 577 P.2d 669] and to reinstate the prior judicial interpretation of this section as it relates to proximate cause for injuries incurred as a result of furnishing alcoholic beverages to an intoxicated person, namely that the furnishing of alcoholic beverages is not the proximate cause of injuries resulting from intoxication, but rather the consumption of alcoholic beverages is the proximate cause of injuries inflicted upon another by an intoxicated person.
Similar action was taken by the Minnesota Legislature, see Minn. Stat. § 340.95; Cole v. City of Spring Lake Park, Minn., 314 N.W.2d 836 (1982); as well as the Iowa Legislature. See Iowa Code § 123.92. Cf. Williams v. Klemesrud, Iowa, 197 N.W.2d 614 (1972) (finding non-licensee liability under prior Dram Shop Act).
In New Jersey, a trial court in ruling on a motion for summary judgment, ignored the California Legislature's actions and relied upon Coulter, supra, in holding that a social host was liable for furnishing alcoholic beverages to an obviously intoxicated person. Figuly v. Knoll, 185 N.J.Super., 477, 449 A.2d 564 (1982). However, the case was never appealed, and the issue has yet to be addressed by an appellate court in that jurisdiction. Cf. Linn v. Rand, 140 N.J. Super. 212, 356 A.2d 15 (App.Div. 1976) (imposing social host liability for service of a minor).
A third jurisdiction, Oregon, has in the past, indicated a willingness to entertain a cause of action in negligence. See Weiner v. Gamma Phi Chapter of Alpha Tau Omega Fraternity, 258 Or. 632, 485 P.2d 18 (1981). However, the facts of that case involved the service of a minor, a fact which we find significant.
In dicta the Court stated:
See Congini et al. v. Portersville Valve Co., 504 Pa. 157, 470 A.2d 515 (1983).
In this regard, we note that there are no reported Oregon cases finding common law social host liability in the situation where an adult guest was the consumer of alcohol. Also, similar to the California Legislature, the Oregon legislative body took the issue out of the hands of the Courts, by legislatively defining the possible cause of actions. See Note. Chapter 801: Commercial and Social Host Liability for Dispensing Alcoholic Beverages, 16 Williamette L.Rev. 191 (1980).
1979 Oregon Laws ch. 801 § 2 provides:
While it is true that some other jurisdictions have recognized a common law action against a social host, they have done so only in the limited situations where an adult host has served intoxicants to a minor; Burke v. Superior Court, 129 Cal.App.3d 570, 181 Cal.Rptr. 149 (1980); Brattain v. Herron, 159 Ind. App. 663, 309 N.E.2d 150 (1974); Thaut v. Finley, 50 Mich. App. 611, 213 N.W.2d 820 (1973); or the individual served was under a special disability, Cantor v. Anderson, 126 Cal.App.3d 124, 178 Cal.Rptr. 540 (1982).
Arguably, the New Jersey decision can be explained as falling within this latter exception, since the defendant there served his guest liquor despite the fact that he knew his guest was "an alcoholic or close to it." Figully v. Knoll, supra, 185 N.J.Super. at 479, 449 A.2d at 564.
But for the above noted exceptions no other jurisdiction has been willing to extend liability to the social host who has served intoxicants to his adult guests. See Chastain v. Litton Systems, Inc., 527 F. Supp. 527 (W.D.N.C. 1981) vacated on other grounds, 694 F.2d 957 (4th Cir. 1982), cert. denied, ___ U.S. ___, 103 S.Ct. 2454, 77 L.Ed.2d 1334 (1983); Cartwright v. Hyatt Corp., 460 F. Supp. 80 (D.C.D.C. 1978); Fruit v. Schreiner, Alaska, 502 P.2d 133 (1972); Kowal v. Hofher, 181 Conn. 355, 436 A.2d 1 (1980); Miller v. Moran, 96 Ill. App.3d 596, 52 Ill.Dec. 183, 421 N.E.2d 1046 (1981); Behnke v. Pierson, 21 Mich. App. 219, 175 N.W.2d 303 (1970); Cole v. City of Spring Lake Park, Minn., 314 N.W.2d 836 (1982); Runge v. Watts, 180 Mont. 91, 589 P.2d 145 (1979); Hamm v. Carson City Nugget, Inc., 85 Nev. 99, 450 P.2d 358 (1969); Schirmer v. Yost, 60 A.D.2d 789, 400 N.Y.S.2d 655 (1977); Edgar v. Kajet, 84 Misc. 100, 375 N.Y.S.2d 548 (1975) aff'd 55 A.D.2d 597, 389 N.Y.S.2d 631 (1976); Tarwater v. Atlantic Co., 176 Tenn. 510, 144 S.W.2d 746 (1940); Halvorson v. Birchfield Boiler, Inc., 76 Wn.2d 759, 458 P.2d 897 (1969).
Therefore, we affirm the order of the Superior Court and remand this case to the Court of Common Pleas of Montgomery County for proceedings not inconsistent with this opinion.
Section 493(1) of the Liquor Code makes it "unlawful . . . for any licensee or the board, or any employe, servant or agent of such licensee, or the board, or any other person, to sell, furnish or give any liquor . . . or to permit any liquor . . . to be sold, furnished or given, to any person visibly intoxicated. . . ." 47 P. S. § 4-493(1) (emphasis added). The use of the language "any other person" clearly manifests a legislative intent to impose an obligation upon all persons to refrain from furnishing alcoholic beverages to visibly intoxicated persons in circumstances which create a reasonably foreseeable risk of harm to third parties. In light of this legislatively imposed standard of conduct, the complaint in trespass, which seeks recovery for injuries allegedly caused by the serving of liquor by a social host to a visibly intoxicated guest, should be reinstated. See Manning v. Andy, 454 Pa. 237, 310 A.2d 75 (1973) (Manderino, J., dissenting, joined by Roberts, J.).
Liquor dispensers who act negligently and cause harm should not be given any special privilege of immunity from liability. We do not give such immunity to automobile drivers. We do not give such immunity to drug dispensers. We do not give such immunity to homeowners. Once there was a special immunity for charities — but no longer. Once there was a special immunity for municipalities — but no longer. Once there was a special immunity for parents — but no longer. The creation of a new class and the establishment of a new immunity makes history — bad history. The combination of an intoxicated person and an automobile causes death and serious harm to many each day. Such victims are entitled to their day in court. That day in court is guaranteed by the declaration of rights in the Pennsylvania Constitution which states that '. . . every man for any injury done him in his lands, goods, person or reputation shall have remedy by due course of law, and right and justice administered without sale, denial or delay.' Pa. Const. art. I, § 11.
It cannot be said that the intervening act of Walters, the alleged intoxicated employee, was, as a matter of law, a superseding cause of appellant's injuries, relieving the appellees of liability even if the appellees' conduct involved a want of due care which caused harm to the appellant. The intervening negligent act of a third person (Walters) is not a superseding cause of harm to another (the appellant) which the actors' (appellees) negligent conduct is a substantial factor in bringing about, if (a) the (appellees) should have realized that (Walters) might so act or (b) (Walters') act was not highly extraordinary, or (c) the act of (Walters) is a normal consequence of a' situation created by the actors' (appellees) conduct and the manner in which it is done is not extraordinarily negligent. Restatement (Second) of Torts § 447 (1965), see Whitner v. Lojeski, 437 Pa. 448, 263 A.2d 889 (1970). See also Restatement (Second) of Torts §§ 440, 443 (1965).
The Liquor Code aside in this case, I cannot say, as a matter of law, that the complaint fails to state a cause of action. In Jardine v. Upper Darby Lodge No. 1973, Inc., 413 Pa. 626, 631, 198 A.2d 550, 553 (1964), this Court said: 'The first prime requisite to de-intoxicate one who has, because of alcohol, lost control over his reflexes, judgment and sense of responsibility to others, is to stop pouring alcohol into him. This is a duty which everyone owes to society and to law entirely apart from any statute.' (Emphasis supplied.) Since the complaint in this case alleges facts from which reasonable men might conclude that the appellees' negligent conduct was the legal cause of harm to the appellant, a cause of action is stated.
Section 493(1) of the Liquor Code, does provide a standard of conduct for persons such as the appellees in this case. By its very terms, the statute covers unlawful conduct, not only for licensees (including their employees, servants and agents) but also for any other person. The meaning of any other person was accurately explained in Commonwealth v. Randall, 183 Pa. Super. 603, 61516, 133 A.2d 276, 281-82 (1957), cert. denied, 355 U.S. 954, 2 L.Ed.2d 530, 78 S.Ct. 539 (1958):
'Secs. 491, 492 and 493, 47 P. S. § 4-491, 4-492, 4-493, set forth in separate paragraphs the "Unlawful acts relative to liquor alcohol and liquor licensees" the "Unlawful acts relative to malt or brewed beverages and licensees," and the "Unlawful acts relative to liquor, malt and brewed beverages and licensees." We deem it noteworthy that the legislature carefully differentiated between "persons," "licensees," "manufacturers," etc., in its enumeration of prohibited acts. In some instances all "persons" are prohibited from doing certain things; in other instances the prohibition applies only to licensees of various types or their "servants, agents or employes" etc. This is a clear indication that the legislature intended that some of the prohibitions were to apply to all persons while others were to apply only to "licensees", or "their servants, agents or employes".
'It is particularly significant that sec. 403 sets forth 25 prohibited acts relative to liquor, malt and brewed beverages, and that the words "or any other person" are included only in the subparagraph which makes it unlawful to sell, furnish or give any liquor or malt or brewed beverages to minors. It is significant also that minors are not the only class of persons to whom liquor or malt or brewed beverages may not be sold, furnished or given. Visibly intoxicated persons, insane persons, habitual drunkards, and persons of known intemperate habits are similarly protected.
'We think that the legislature in using the words "or any other person" deliberately selected these words in order to prohibit minors, visibly intoxicated persons, insane persons, habitual drunkards, and persons of known intemperate habits, from obtaining liquor, malt or brewed beverages, whether by purchase or gift, from licensees or any other persons. . . . If we were to restrict this section of the Act to "licensees" or their "servants, agents or employes," we would nullify the very purpose of the Act.'
The reasoning of Randall, as to the meaning of any other person is indisputable. The Liquor Code defines person as '. . . a natural person, association or corporation. . . .' Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, art. I, § 102, as amended, 47 P.S. 1-102. Only by a gross distortion of the meaning of language can we interpret any other person to mean some but not all persons. 'When the words of a statute are clear and free from all ambiguity, the letter of it is not to be disregarded under the pretext of pursuing its spirit.' 1 Pa.C.S.A. § 1921 (b) (1973) (emphasis supplied). See Ross v. Ross, 200 N.W.2d 149 (Minn. 1972), in which, pursuant to a similar, but not identical Minnesota statute, civil liability was imposed upon persons who were not in the liquor business. The statute in Ross referred to any person.
'The court may adopt as the standard of conduct of a reasonable man the requirements of a legislative enactment or an administrative regulation whose purpose is found to be exclusively or in part (a) to protect a class of persons which includes the one whose interest is invaded, and (b) to protect the particular interest which is invaded, and (c) to protect that interest against the kind of harm which has resulted, and (d) to protect that interest against the particular hazard from which the harm results.' Restatement (Second) of Torts § 286 (1965).
A statute providing for criminal liability but not civil liability leaves a court free to accept or not accept the legislatively established standard of conduct for purposes of a tort action. '[T]he decision to adopt the standard is purely a judicial one, for the court to make. When the court does adopt the legislative standard, it is acting to further the general purpose which it finds in the legislation. . . .' Restatement (Second) of Torts, Explanatory Notes § 286, comment d at 26 (1965). The purpose of the Liquor Code is stated as follows: 'This act shall be deemed an exercise of the police power of the Commonwealth for the protection of the public welfare, health, peace and morals of the people of the Commonwealth and to prohibit forever the open saloon, and all of the provisions of this act shall be liberally construed for the accomplishment of this purpose.' Act of April 12, 1951, P.L. 90, art. I, § 104(a), 47 P.S. 1-104(a) (emphasis supplied).
' "We obviously do not accept the 'too much work to do' rationale. We place the responsibility exactly where it should be: not in denying relief to those who have been injured, but on the judicial machinery of the Commonwealth to fulfill its obligation to make itself available to litigants. Who is to say which class of aggrieved plaintiffs should be denied access to our courts because of speculation that the workload will be a burden? Certainly this Court is unwilling to allow such considerations to influence a determination whether a class of litigants will be denied or permitted to seek adjudication of its claims." (Emphasis in original.)'
In Klein the plaintiffs were injured when their vehicle was struck by Raysinger after he had consumed alcohol as a social guest of the additional defendants, the Gilligans.
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983), this Court first addressed the concept of social host liability.
compiling definitions of the social host doctrine utilized in various jurisdictions
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983), this Court refused to recognize a common law social host liability for serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, whom the host knew, or should have known, intends to drive a motor vehicle.
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983), following the great weight of authority in the United States, we held that a social host was not at law the keeper of ordinary able-bodied men; that it was the consumption rather than the furnishing of alcohol that is the proximate cause of any subsequent occurrence.
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983), we held that no duty exists under the common law which would impose liability upon a social host who serves alcohol to an adult guest for conduct of the guest which results in injury to himself or to a third party.
Summary of this case from Congini v. Portersville Valve Co.
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983), the court determined that the Liquor Code, 47 P. S. § 4-493(1), which prohibits a liquor licensee from serving alcohol to a visibly intoxicated person, does not create a civil cause of action against non-licensed persons for providing alcohol to adults.
Summary of this case from Campo v. St. Luke's Hospital
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983), our Supreme Court, declined to extend common law liability to the social host who serves alcohol to a visibly intoxicated adult guest, even when the host knows, or should know, that the guest intends to drive a motor vehicle.
In Klein, the Supreme Court affirmed the entry of summary judgment in favor of the defendants after determining that the plaintiff was twenty-one years of age, and thus an adult, at the time the defendants furnished alcohol to him.
In Klein, the supreme court was called upon to resolve the issue of the liability of a gratuitous server of intoxicants to an adult guest.
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983), the Supreme Court determined that there can be no liability on the part of a social host who serves intoxicants to his or her adult guests.
Summary of this case from Burkhart v. Brockway Glass Co.
In Klein v. Raysinger, [ 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d 507 (1983),] we held that there exists no common law liability on the part of a social host for the service of intoxicants to his adult guests.
Summary of this case from Douglas v. Schwenk
In Klein, the Supreme Court held that an adult social host cannot be held tortiously liable to an adult guest for serving the guest an excessive amount of alcohol, and hence, that the social host could not be held responsible to plaintiffs who were injured in an automobile accident involving an intoxicated adult guest.
Summary of this case from Muntz v. Com., Dept. of Transp