Moranko, F. v. Downs Racing, 118 A.3d 1111

Moranko, administrator of the Estate of Richard Moranko, sues Mohegan Sun for wrongful death and survival after the decedent, visibly intoxicated, retrieved his car from valet at Mohegan Sun Pocono Downs and later died in a crash.
Mohegan Sun moved for summary judgment on grounds including lack of evidence that it served alcohol to a visibly intoxicated decedent and lack of duty of a valet to withhold keys.
The trial court granted summary judgment in Mohegan Sun’s favor; an initial panel affirmed; reargument was granted and supplemental briefs filed.
On appeal, the court recognizes the question as one of first impression in Pennsylvania regarding duty of a valet service toward an intoxicated patron.
The majority ultimately holds that Pennsylvania law does not impose a duty on the casino or its valet to withhold keys from a visibly intoxicated patron, affirming summary judgment.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Duty of valet to withhold keys from visibly intoxicated patron	Moranko relies on general duty concepts and Restatement §324A (and internal policies) to impose duty.	No duty exists; there is no evidence of alcohol service to decedent while intoxicated; policies do not create a legal duty.	No duty imposed; valet not liable.
Applicability of Restatement §§ 324A and 323	§324A supports liability for negligent undertakings and may create a duty in this context; §323 may apply.	§324A inapplicable here; §323 not properly preserved/waived; even if considered, not controlling.	§324A inapplicable; §323 argument waived and not grounds for relief.
Effect of internal policies on duty	Internal security/handling policies show Mohegan Sun undertook to protect patrons from driving intoxicated and thus created a duty.	Policies relate to preventing intoxicated patrons from gambling, not withholding vehicle Keys; not a legal duty toward decedent.	Policies do not create a legal duty to withhold keys.

E.R. Linde Const. Corp. v. Goodwin, 68 A.3d 346 (Pa. Super. 2013) (summary judgment standard; record reviewed in plaintiff-friendly light)
Montagazzi v. Crisci, 994 A.2d 626 (Pa. Super. 2010) (duty factors in negligence questions)
Roche v. Ugly Duckling Car Sales, Inc., 879 A.2d 785 (Pa. Super. 2005) (duty required for breach of negligent-care theories)
Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., 470 A.2d 515 (Pa. 1983) (restatement-based duty considerations for undertakings)
Mills v. Continental Parking Corp., 475 P.2d 673 (Nev. 1970) (negligent entrustment limitations for bailees in intoxication context)
Taylor v. Philadelphia Parking Authority, 156 A.2d 525 (Pa. 1959) (mutual bailment creates bailee-bailor relationship in parking)
Baione v. Heavey, 158 A. 181 (Pa. 1932) (bailor-bailee relationship in parking)