48 Pa. D. & C.5th 498
Pennsylvania Court of Common P...2015Background
- Plaintiff Melissa LaCivita sued Town & Country Bar and Grill under Pennsylvania’s Dram Shop Act after being injured as a passenger in a collision on March 29, 2012; the drivers were allegedly served alcohol at defendant on March 28–29.
- Complaint alleges Town & Country’s employees served alcoholic beverages to James Karpik and R.J. Crawford when they were visibly intoxicated, and that their intoxication rendered them incapable of safely operating their vehicles.
- The vehicle operated by Karpik attempted to move toward the center lane and was struck by Crawford’s vehicle while Crawford attempted to pass; plaintiff alleges this collision caused her injuries.
- Defendant filed preliminary objections arguing (1) the complaint lacks specificity about how the drivers’ conduct caused the collision and how the sale of alcohol at the bar proximately caused plaintiff’s injuries, and (2) Karpik and Crawford are indispensable parties who must be joined.
- Court held the lack-of-specificity objection was well taken and granted plaintiff leave to amend; the indispensable-party objection was overruled because the absent drivers have no necessary procedural interest that would prevent justice being done in their absence.
- Court ordered plaintiff to file an amended complaint within 20 days; defendant may file new preliminary objections or an answer thereafter.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Sufficiency/specificity of pleading under Pa.R.C.P. 1019 | Complaint gives enough facts linking bar service to drivers’ intoxication and resulting collision | Complaint fails to plead material facts about drivers’ conduct, location, manner of driving, or facts showing visible intoxication at the bar | Sustained — complaint must be amended to add specific, non-evidentiary facts supporting dram shop claim |
| Failure to join indispensable parties (Karpik, Crawford) | Not applicable — plaintiff sues only bar under Dram Shop Act and is not seeking recovery from drivers | Absence of drivers deprives court of jurisdiction; they are indispensable to adjudicate causation and comparative negligence | Overruled — drivers are not indispensable; their absence does not prevent justice or bar defendant from asserting comparative negligence defenses |
Key Cases Cited
- Unified Sportsmen of Pennsylvania v. Pennsylvania Game Com’n, 950 A.2d 1120 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2008) (describing fact-pleading and notice requirements)
- Commonwealth ex rel. Pappert v. TAP Pharmaceuticals Products, Inc., 868 A.2d 624 (Pa. Cmwlth. 2005) (pleading must state facts plaintiff must prove to recover)
- Connor v. Allegheny Gen. Hosp., 461 A.2d 600 (Pa. 1983) (conclusory averments lacking specificity may be challenged)
- In re Estate of Schofield, 477 A.2d 473 (Pa. 1984) (pleadings must adequately explain nature of claim to permit defense preparation)
- Fiore v. Oakwood Plaza Shopping Ctr., 585 A.2d 1012 (Pa. Super. 1991) (factors for determining indispensability)
- Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524 (Pa. Super. 1998) (plaintiff must prove proximate causation linking dram shop sale to injury)