Valet Service Not Liable for Patron’s Drunk Driving (PA)

Although relatively strict with respect to dram shop liability, the Pennsylvania Superior Court recently deviated from the “visible intoxication” mantra to hold in a case of first impression that valet services are not liable for injuries sustained by a patron who injures himself as a result of driving under the influence.

In the case of Moranko v. Downs Racing LP, the administratrix of the decedent’s estate brought wrongful death and survival actions against Mohegan Sun casino under Pennsylvania’s dram shop laws, alleging that before his fatal motor vehicle accident, Mohegan Sun had served her son copious amounts of alcohol and allowed him to retrieve his automobile from valet services despite his alleged visible intoxication.  While Mohegan Sun unsurprisingly moved the trial court for summary judgment as to the lack of evidence regarding visible intoxication, it also argued that there is no cause of action in Pennsylvania allowing recovery against a valet service for relinquishing control of a vehicle to a visibly intoxicated customer.  This latter argument ultimately proved successful and summary judgment was awarded in favor of Mohegan Sun.

In the appeal to the Superior Court that followed, the administratrix took exception to, among other things, the trial court’s finding that Pennsylvania law does not impose an affirmative duty on valet services to prevent intoxicated customers from operating their vehicles.  Citing case law from around the country that likened the relationship between customer and valet to that of bailor and bailee, the three-judge panel of the Superior Court concluded that valets are “duty bound to surrender control of the [customer’s] vehicle when it [is] demanded, notwithstanding the [customer’s] alleged intoxication.”  More specifically, the Court explained that while valets retain temporary possession of their customers’ vehicles, they do not maintain a right of control and are therefore required to relinquish possession immediately upon request.

Although clearly compelled by Pennsylvania law governing the bailor-bailee relationship, the Court’s decision in Moranko might have been different if Mohegan Sun’s internal policies were intended to prevent intoxicated customers from operating their vehicles.  In particular, the Court considered whether Mohegan Sun’s internal policy preventing intoxicated customers from gambling was also evidence that it assumed the duty of preventing drunk driving.  Despite answering that question in the negative, the Court did imply that internal policies aimed at preventing customers from driving under the influence might suffice to impose a legal duty under Pennsylvania law.

All told, Moranko serves as a departure from Pennsylvania’s trending social policy towards dram shop liability, yet reminds us that parties can nonetheless assume otherwise nonexistent legal duties under the right circumstances.

Thanks to Adam Gomez for his contribution.

For more information, contact Denise Fontana Ricci at