NO. 189 PITTSBURGH, 1981, Appeal from the Order of January 12, 1981, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, at No. GD 80-6959. No. 354 PITTSBURGH, 1981, Appeal from the Order of March 5, 1981, in the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County, at No. GD 80-6959.
Robert G. Xides, McKeesport, for appellants.
Herbert N. Rosenberg, Pittsburgh, for Conneely, appellee.
James E. Coyne, Pittsburgh, for All-Ireland, appellee.
John W. Jordan, Pittsburgh, for Nee, appellee.
Hester, Beck and Van der Voort, JJ.
[ 328 Pa. Super. Page 482]
This case involves the issue of whether a third party has a cause of action in negligence against a social host who furnishes alcoholic beverages to an adult guest who, after becoming intoxicated, leaves the social gathering and injures the third party. Appellants Sites and Mihaly, plaintiffs below, were struck by an automobile driven by defendant Cloonan, who is not involved in this appeal. Cloonan was intoxicated. He had consumed liquor at a non-commercial social event sponsored by appellee All-Ireland Athletic Association on the premises of appellee Knights of Columbus. Appellee Conneely was the bartender who served liquor to Cloonan. Appellee Nee is a member of the Knights of Columbus who was present at the affair and who had been entrusted by the Knights with the keys to the premises. Appellees were also defendants below.
Sustaining appellees' preliminary objections, the lower court dismissed appellants' complaint with respect to all appellees, holding that no cause of action existed against appellees as gratuitous suppliers of liquor. We affirm. This case is controlled by the recent decision of our Supreme Court in Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141, 470 A.2d
[ 328 Pa. Super. Page 483507]
(1983). In Klein, the Supreme Court held that "there can be no liability on the part of a social host who serves alcoholic beverages to his or her adult guests." 504 Pa. at 148, 470 A.2d at 511. It is clear that appellees were acting strictly as social hosts.*fn1 No sales of liquor took place at the affair in question, and no appellee was a licensee or an employee or agent of a licensee under Article IV of the Liquor Code, 47 P.S. §§ 4-401 et seq.*fn2 Therefore, the trial court correctly dismissed appellants' complaint against appellees.