Court Opinion

ID: 9746391
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 14:14:16.167498+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:12.682767
License: Public Domain

CIRILLO, President Judge,
concurring:
The recent Supreme Court decision in Matthews v. Konieczny, 515 Pa. -, 527 A.2d 508 (1987), compels me to agree with the majority that a liquor licensee who sells alcohol to a minor can now be held liable for injuries to a *10third person resulting from the minor’s intoxication. However, I continue to believe, as I stated in my opinion in Mancuso v. Bradshaw, 338 Pa.Super. 328, 487 A.2d 990 (1985), rev’d, 515 Pa. -, 527 A.2d 508 (1987), that the Legislature specifically intended to shield liquor licensees from such liability unless the person sold to was visibly intoxicated. See 47 P.S. § 4-497. I further believe that judicial recognition of a cause of action against persons in appellees’ position, in the face of what I perceive to be a contrary legislative mandate, is unwise. See Matthews (Zappala, J., dissenting). Nevertheless, our high court having spoken on this issue, we are bound to follow, and any different direction on this subject must come from the Legislature.