Kronfeld v. Sugarhouse HSP Gaming, LP
42 Pa. D. & C.5th 353
| Pennsylvania Court of Common P... | 2014Background
- Michael Kronfeld collapsed at Sugarhouse Casino; employees provided first aid and called emergency paramedics; he later died in hospital.
- Adi Kronfeld (administrator) sued Sugarhouse for wrongful death and survival claims alleging negligence by the casino and its employees.
- Complaint alleges multiple breaches: failures to perform or adequately perform resuscitation/AED use, failure to summon professional assistance, failure to ensure patron safety, negligent hiring/training/supervision, and that the casino’s environment increased cardiac risk.
- Sugarhouse filed preliminary objections (demurrer) challenging sufficiency of the negligence claims under Rule 1028(a)(4).
- Court evaluated duties under Restatement (Second) of Torts §314A and Pennsylvania case law concerning business invitees, AEDs, and Good Samaritan statutory immunity.
- Court sustained the demurrer with prejudice as to most claims (¶39a, b, c, e and related allegations) but overruled as to ¶39d (failure to summon professional assistance) and ¶39f (failure to exercise reasonable care based on circumstances).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Scope of duty owed by a business invitee | Kronfeld: Sugarhouse owed duty to perform/adequately perform resuscitation and use AEDs, and to have training/policies | Sugarhouse: Duty is limited to providing first aid and summoning professional help; no duty to perform advanced medical care or have AEDs | Court: Duty limited to first aid and summoning medical assistance; claims alleging broader duties (¶39a,b,c,e) dismissed |
| Duty to acquire/use AEDs or perform advanced resuscitation | Kronfeld: Casino should have provided/used AED and trained staff | Sugarhouse: No statutory or common-law duty to acquire/use AEDs or perform more than first aid | Court: Follows Atcovitz — no duty to acquire/use AEDs; such claims fail |
| Corporate liability and Good Samaritan immunity | Kronfeld: Corporate defendant not protected by Good Samaritan immunity; employees’ conduct may impose corporate liability | Sugarhouse: Good Samaritan Civil Immunity (42 Pa. C.S.A. §8332) covers persons (including corporations) rendering emergency care; no allegations of gross negligence or bad faith | Court: Corporate defendant statutorily immune where employees acted in good faith; negligent undertaking/respondeat superior claims dismissed |
| Alleged increased risk from casino environment | Kronfeld: Casino’s sensory/stimulation environment contributed to cardiac event and created additional duty | Sugarhouse: Inherent risks of entertainment venues do not impose special duties beyond ordinary care | Court: Such theory inappropriate to impose new duty; claim rejected as creating insurer-like liability |
Key Cases Cited
- Campbell v. Eitak, Inc., 893 A.2d 749 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2006) (holding that promptly summoning medical assistance can satisfy a business’s duty to a patron)
- Atcovitz v. Gulph Mills Tennis Club, Inc., 812 A.2d 1218 (Pa. 2000) (declining to impose a duty on businesses to acquire, maintain, or use AEDs)
- Jones v. Three Rivers Management, 394 A.2d 546 (Pa. 1978) (discussing risks and duties at entertainment venues)
- Beck v. Stanley Co., 50 A.2d 306 (Pa. 1947) (venue-related duty principles)
- Loughran v. The Phillies, 888 A.2d 872 (Pa. Super. Ct. 2005) (addressing duties at sports/entertainment facilities)