Opinion

Klein v. Raysinger

  • 504 Pa. 141
  • 470 A.2d 507
  • 1983 Pa. LEXIS 787
Court
Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
Filed
Dec 30, 1983
Status
Published
Author
Roberts
On the bench
Manderino, Roberts, Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott
Cited by
57 cases
Authority
More cited than 7.1%

generally no liability at common law imposed on a social host who serves liquor to a visibly intoxicated adult guest

How later courts described this case

  • generally no liability at common law imposed on a social host who serves liquor to a visibly intoxicated adult guest
  • discussing Coulter v. Superior Court of San Mateo, 577 P.2d 669 (Cal. 1979); Figuly v. Knoll, 449 A.2d 564 (N.J. Super. Ct. Law Div. 1982)
  • “We agree with this common law view, and consequently hold that there can be no liability on the part of a social host who serves alcoholic beverages to his or her adult guests.”
  • compiling definitions of the social host doctrine utilized in various jurisdictions

Written by the judges who cited it.

Distinguished

  • Distinguished by Currie v. Phillips, 70 Pa. D. & C.4th 401 (2005)

    The Supreme Court held that the rule in Klein is inapplicable in those situations where an adult provides a minor with alcohol.
    Pennsylvania Court of Common Pleas, Lackawanna CountyJan 18, 2005Read it

The opinion

ROBERTS, Chief Justice,

dissenting.

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.).

Accordingly, I dissent, would reverse the order of the Superior Court, and would allow the case to proceed to trial.

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.