Juszczyszyn, C. v. Taiwo, O.
113 A.3d 853
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2015Background
- On April 20, 2012, Philadelphia Police Officer Christopher Juszczyszyn responded to a disturbance at Lid’s Lounge and confronted an intoxicated, physically confrontational patron.
- During the encounter the patron allegedly assaulted Officer Juszczyszyn, causing injury.
- Officer Juszczyszyn sued the bar owners/operators (Taiwo and CST Entertainment) for negligence and under Pennsylvania’s Dram Shop Act.
- Defendants filed preliminary objections in the nature of a demurrer; the trial court sustained the objections and dismissed the complaint with prejudice on June 19, 2014.
- The Superior Court reviewed de novo whether the complaint pleaded a legally cognizable cause of action and whether amendment would be futile.
- The Superior Court affirmed dismissal, concluding (1) the officer was a licensee (or, at best, an invitee facing an obvious risk) so no breach of duty for negligence is shown, and (2) the officer is not within the class the Dram Shop Act was intended to protect when he was injured while responding to the call that the statute’s violation itself caused.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Status on premises (invitee v. licensee) | Officer argues he was an invitee and defendants owed heightened duties | Defendants argue officer responding to a call is a licensee (or, at most, faced obvious risk) and owed only limited duties | Court held officer was a licensee (or, even if invitee, confronted an obvious danger); no actionable breach; amendment would be futile |
| Dram Shop Act liability (47 P.S. §§ 4-493, 4-497) | Officer contends defendants served a visibly intoxicated patron and that caused his injuries, making them negligent per se | Defendants argue the Dram Shop Act protects ordinary third-party victims, not police officers injured while responding to the very conduct that created the need for police | Court held officer was not within the class the statute protects in these circumstances; dram shop claim fails and amendment would be futile |
| Denial of leave to amend | Officer contends dismissal with prejudice without opportunity to amend was error | Defendants argue facts pleaded show obvious risks and statutory class issue cannot be cured by amendment | Court held denying leave was proper because amendment would be futile |
| Reliance on precedent (Holpp) | Officer challenges use of Holpp to classify officer as licensee | Defendants rely on Holpp and related authority to show officers responding to calls are licensees or face known risks | Court affirmed use of Holpp; precedent controls outcome |
Key Cases Cited
- Holpp v. Fez, Inc., 656 A.2d 147 (Pa. Super. 1995) (police responding to disturbance generally treated as licensees and owed duty to warn of hidden dangers)
- Bruno v. Erie Ins. Co., 106 A.3d 48 (Pa. 2014) (standard for reviewing demurrers; doubts resolved in favor of overruling)
- In re Estate of Luongo, 823 A.2d 942 (Pa. Super. 2003) (leave to amend should be granted unless amendment is clearly futile)
- McCloud v. McLaughlin, 837 A.2d 541 (Pa. Super. 2003) (plaintiff must be within class statute intended to protect to invoke negligence per se)
- Pottebaum v. Hinds, 347 N.W.2d 642 (Iowa 1984) (police officers are not within dram shop statutory protection when the statute violation created the need for the officer’s presence)