Barr v. Easton
39 Pa. D. & C.5th 211
| Pennsylvania Court of Common P... | 2014Background
- On Oct. 9, 2011 at ~2:45 a.m., John M. Easton, Jr., driving a 1994 Ford pickup, struck a parked truck and severely injured Alonzo D. Barr; Easton fled and was later arrested.
- Plaintiff sued Easton (Count 1 — negligence), employer-related defendants for negligent entrustment (Counts 2–3), and establishment-related defendants (Loyalsock Hotel, its estate/co-executors) for dram shop liability: statutory (Count 4) and common-law (Count 5).
- Employer-related defendants moved to demur Counts 2–3 for allegedly insufficient factual allegations of knowledge required for negligent entrustment.
- Establishment-related defendants moved to dismiss Counts 4–5, arguing (a) the Loyalsock Hotel was not incorporated on the accident date so cannot be liable, (b) an estate cannot be liable for torts of an executor, and (c) the dram shop statute precludes common-law dram-shop claims.
- The court considered demurrers under Pa. R.C.P. 1028(a)(4), accepting well-pleaded facts as true and sustaining dismissal only in clear cases.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency of negligent entrustment pleadings (Counts 2–3) | Alleged defendants owned/controlled the truck and knew or should have known Easton had a propensity to drive intoxicated. | Pleadings lack specific facts showing defendants had requisite knowledge. | Overruled demurrer — complaint sufficiently pleads knowledge at this stage; defendants may raise defenses later. |
| Liability of entity not incorporated at time of tort (Loyalsock Hotel) | Plaintiff alleges theories (e.g., successor/continuation/fraud exceptions) in opposition brief to show post‑incorporation entity can be liable. | Loyalsock Hotel argues it was not incorporated on Oct. 8–9, 2011 and thus cannot be liable. | Overruled objection — unresolved factual/legal questions preclude dismissal at pleading stage. |
| Estate liability for torts of executors (Estate of Mary E. Temple) | Complaint alleges co-executors ran hotel business and estate would financially benefit from sales; estate may be liable under exceptions. | Estate claims general rule bars estate liability for executor's torts during administration. | Overruled objection — pleading permits inference estate may have benefited or acted under testator's direction; defense preserved for summary judgment. |
| Preclusion of common-law dram-shop claim by statutory dram-shop act (Count 5) | Plaintiff pleaded common-law negligence theories under Count 5 (various negligence averments). | Defendants argue 47 P.S. §4-493 requires visible intoxication and bars other common-law dram-shop claims. | Sustained — Count 5 (common-law dram-shop) stricken because statute conditions dram-shop liability on furnishing to a visibly intoxicated person, effectively precluding the pleaded common-law theories. |
Key Cases Cited
- Sullivan v. Chartwell Inv. Partners, LP, 873 A.2d 710 (Pa. Super. 2005) (standard for reviewing demurrers).
- Thierfelder v. Wolfert, 52 A.3d 1251 (Pa. 2012) (accept well‑pleaded facts and reasonable inferences on demurrer).
- Bower v. Bower, 611 A.2d 181 (Pa. 1992) (preliminary objections dismissing claims should be sustained only in clear cases).
- Wittrien v. Burkholder, 965 A.2d 1229 (Pa. Super. 2009) (adoption of Restatement (Second) of Torts §308 for negligent entrustment).
- Ferry v. Fisher, 709 A.2d 399 (Pa. Super. 1998) (elements of negligent entrustment).
- Schuenemann v. Dreemz, LLC, 34 A.3d 94 (Pa. Super. 2011) (dram-shop statutory violation is negligence per se and requires visible intoxication).
- Cron v. Sarjac, Inc., 714 A.2d 1024 (Pa. 1998) (statutory dram-shop liability and proximate cause).
- Miller v. Jacobs, 65 A.2d 362 (Pa. 1949) (general rule that an estate is not liable for torts of an executor, with limited exceptions).
- Cont’l Ins. Co. v. Schneider, Inc., 873 A.2d 1286 (Pa. 2005) (successor‑liability exceptions to rule that purchaser of assets does not assume seller's liabilities).