Schuenemann v. Dreemz, LLC
34 A.3d 94
| Pa. Super. Ct. | 2011Background
- Dreemz, LLC sold alcohol to a visibly intoxicated decedent who later died in a high-speed crash.
- Estate sued Dreemz on two counts: negligence/dram shop liability and a survival action.
- Jury found Dreemz 49% at fault; damages awarded: wrongful death $479,559 and survival $1,485,199.
- Jury considered punitive damages but awarded none; court later denied post-trial motion.
- Dreemz appealed the denial, arguing improper evidence and misapplication of Dram Shop Act limits.
- Trial court summarized its evidentiary rulings and preserved the challenge for appellate review.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether new trial is warranted for improper evidentiary rulings | Dreemz argues admissible evidence exceeded Dram Shop Act scope | Dreemz contends evidence irrelevant and prejudicial under §4-493 | No error; evidence proper and probative; no basis for new trial. |
| Whether BAC evidence was correctly admitted in light of Suskey distinction | Dreems argues BAC testimony improperly used as civil standard | Appellee contends BAC relevant to intoxication, with no per se presumption | Admissible; BAC evidence supported by Ackerman; harmless error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schmidt v. Boardman, 958 A.2d 498 (Pa.Super.2008) (review of evidentiary rulings for abuse of discretion)
- Detwiler v. Brumbaugh, 441 Pa.Super. 110 (Pa.Super.1995) (duty under Dram Shop Act; negligence per se)
- Cron v. Sarjac, Inc., 552 Pa. 269 (Pa. 1998) (negligence per se under Dram Shop Act)
- Fandozzi v. Kelly Hotel, Inc., 711 A.2d 524 (Pa.Super.1998) (proof requirements under Dram Shop Act)
- Miller v. Brass Rail Tavern, Inc., 702 A.2d 1072 (Pa.Super.1997) (Dram Shop Act evidence standards)
- Coleman v. Wyeth Pharmaceuticals, Inc., 6 A.3d 502 (Pa.Super.2010) (deposition evidence admissibility in trials)
- Suskey v. Loyal Order of Moose Lodge No. 86, 472 A.2d 663 (Pa.Super.1984) (BAC presumption in civil vs. criminal contexts)
- Ackerman v. Delcomico, 486 A.2d 410 (Pa.Super.1984) (BAC evidence admissibility when coupled with other evidence)
- Stumpf v. Nye, 950 A.2d 1032 (Pa.Super.2008) (admission of evidence within trial court’s discretion)
- American Future Sys., Inc. v. BBB, 872 A.2d 1202 (Pa.Super.2005) (relevancy and prejudice balancing)
- Pittsburgh Const. Co. v. Griffith, 834 A.2d 572 (Pa.Super.2003) (broad discretion on evidentiary rulings)