HomeMy WebLinkAbout00-03372
.T=~".. _ '" ~ ~ ~~~,~U ... .._~.~
k ._
~
,
J. A20042/04
NON-PRECEDENTIAL DECISION - SEE SUPERIOR COURT I,O,P.65.37
BONNY RIDER,
Appellant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
~/DlY )J~l~ ~ /
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
No. 1174 MDA 2003
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3372
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Appellant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v,
Ji()b- ~lf'(;~ ~
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLYA, RUBY
Appellees
No. 1175 MDA 2003
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No, 00-3488
-, "'~'t);~
-
I. ,
., , " -~ ~.- -- , " '.
,
J. A20042/04
GARRY E. AND JOAN L. BOYD, SR"
Appellant
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
v.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
v.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
No. 1176 MDA 2003
Appeal from the Judgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No, 00-3371
BEFORE: DEL SOLE, P.J., KELLY and CAVANAUGH, JJ.*
MEMORANDUM:
FILED: August 26, 2004
One minor does not owe a duty to another minor regarding the
furnishing or consumption of alcohol. Kapres v. Heller, 640 A.2d 888, 891
CPa. 1994). Appellants seek to challenge the continuing validity of this
limitation to the doctrine of social host liability. Since we are without
authority to grant the reliefsought by appellant, we affirm.
The lower court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of
appellee-Benjamin Ocker based upon his being under twenty-one years of
age at the time he had a party at his parents' house, provided beer to others
under the age of twenty-one, and did not stop one of them, Evan Spencer,
*This decision was reached prior to the death of Judge Cavanaugh.
2
, ,
, ,
_0 .'~ _ _~
_1-
, '"
~"
.' ~-
J, A20042/04
from operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The lower court
determined that based upon the ages of Ocker and Spencer, i.e., both under
the age of twenty-one, Ocker was not liable to third persons as a social host
for acts committed by Spencer while he was under the influence of alcohol
provided by Ocker.
Our standard of review in an appeal from the granting of summary
judgment is whether the lower court committed an error of law or engaged
in a clear abuse of discretion. Gerrow v. Shincor Silicones, Inc., 756 A.2d
697, 700 CPa. Super. 2000). We examine the record in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and determine whether the moving party
has established that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Id.
The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party are that the four appellants were the driver, Garry E, Boyd, and three
passengers, Joan L. Boyd, Bonny Rider, and Walter Armstrong, in a motor
vehicle which was in a collision with the vehicle operated by appellee-Evan
Spencer. They each suffered severe injuries. At the time of the accident
Spencer was 17 years old. He had been to a party hosted by his friend,
appellee-Benjamin Ocker, who was twenty years old. Ocker provided a keg
of beer and served it to his guests, including Spencer.
Appellants argue that Ocker should be considered an adult, and,
therefore, subject to liability as a social host who furnished alcohol to a
3
*
-
- "
Il
,,~
~ '"
"
J. A20042j04
minor. See Congini v. Portersville Valve Co" 470 A.2d 515 CPa. 1983).
However, this argument must be rejected in light of the Supreme Court's
holding in Kapres, supra, which declined to impose social host liability upon
an individual who was twenty years old for furnishing alcohol to another
person, also under twenty-one years old. Because both the person serving
alcohol and the person drinking it are considered under the law to be
incompetent to handle alcohol, the court held that the principle of social host
liability was inapplicable. Id. at 891. See also Sperando v,
Commonwealth DOT, 643 A.2d 1079 CPa. 1994),
We are obliged to follow the law as articulated by the Supreme Court
in Kapres and Sperando. It is the duty and obligation of the Superior Court
to follow the decisional law of the Supreme Court. Commonwealth v.
Shaffer, 734 ~.2d 840, 845 n.6 CPa. 1999). A fundamental precept of our
judicial system is that a lower court may not disregard the standards
articulated by a higher court. Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A,2d
1242, 1245 CPa. 1998); Flannery v. Stump, 786 A.2d 255, 259 n.1 CPa.
Super. 2001). As an intermediate appellate court, the Superior Court does
not enunciate new precepts of law or expand existing legal doctrines, since
that province is reserved to the Supreme Court. Mountain Properties, Inc,
v. Tyler Hill Realty Corp., 767 A.2d 1096, 1100 CPa. Super. 2001).
Given the clarity of the Supreme Court's holdings in Kapres and
Sperando, we conclude that the lower court did not commit an error of law
4
~
~ -~
, [
-,
-', 'iV"',:
.
,-
,
,
J. A20042/04
or an abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of
appellees.
Judgment affirmed,
Date:-.AllG 2 6 2004
5
-
~~~;I,!!lil<lcll.'!L~)j;':"~~HWil~L~;MM~1W~~d~,qj1i<:;;,!.!M"'t;;',(",#fl:.fllitW;i0"'fui!il",,olliii'flj;Ji,BiliIii!l;fl'i1j~~~Iti!\;MiiIN!lllOlfiiM,~,""""<'~LL"
,':
Lit
,
~. .,'-
, ~
" ~
~ ~, -
, .~
,~
.~""'"~
~i
_. ..
.
J!\
C) ...., 0
=
C C:;::J -n
""';>" ..r:-
" ;J:l,
'-o{/j <::>
n'~ ;"; I C-) ",:II
"';"., -l r::
" I ::B~
I.:fj <..'1 0
~~ --Ie)
-0 :J..:{4
~:!~^'] ::r. ~a~
:~~2 .r:- Of
--I
:;r.:. ~
::< N '<
~~
^
L..
6
o
CERTIFICATE AND TRANSMITTAL OF RECORDS UNDER
PENNSYLVANIA RULE OF APPELLATE PROCEDURE 1931 (C)
To the Prothonotary of the Apellate Court to which the within matter has been appealed:
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA
The undersigued, Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
the said court being a court of record, do hereby certify that armexed hereto is a true and
correct copy of the whole and entire record, including an opinion of the court as required
by PA R.A.P, 1925, the original papers and exhibits, if any on file, the transcript of the
proceedings, if any, and the docket entries in the following matter:
BONNIE RYDER
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER
v.
RYAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
~O.00-3372 CIVIL TERM
1174MDA 2003
The documents comprising the record have been numbered from No.1 to 25, and
attached hereto as Exhibit A is a list of the documents correspondingly numbered and
identified with reasonable definiteness, including with respect to each document, the
number of pages comprising the document.
The date on which the record has been transmitted to the Appellate Court i 10/17/03.
d
An additional CODV of this certificate is enclosed. Please sil!n and date CODV. thereby
acknowledl!inl! receiDt of this record.
Signatnre ~ FILeD IN SUPEAI~ lil'oUt\T
OCT 2 3 zoo3lr~
MIDDLE
Date
,
"
I
j, ~I
~ .u~_
,
.' -; ,-,.-,' ~ - > ik
~-BJ:4,~
o
o
Among the Records and Proceedings enrolled in the court of Common Pleas in and for the
to No,
CUMBERLAND
1174 MDA 2003
00-3372 CIVIL
in the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
county of
Term, 19 is contained the following:
COPY OF
COMPLETE
DOCKET ENTRY
BONNIE RYDER
v.
BENJAMIN OCKER
v.
RYAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER,
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
SEE ATTACHED CERTIFIED DOCKET ENTRIES.
,/Oi
PYS510
2000-03372
~<'..,.,
RYDER
CUmbe,r, land County prothonotary's~, ,ffice
o Civil Case Print li;.I
BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
1
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment.:..., .00
Judge Asslgned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
Filed, . . . . , , , :
Time",..",. :
Execution Date
Jury Trial, , . .
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1,:
Higher Crt 2,:
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
********************************************************************************
General Index Attorney Info
RYDER BoNNIE
273 PLAZA DRIVE
BOILING SPRINGS PA 17007
OCKER BENJAMIN G
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EVAN
SPENCER ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
PLAINTIFF
SADLOCK RICHARD A
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
Y
Y
Y
Judgment Index
SPENCER EVAN
RYDER BONNIE
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
RYDER BONNIE
SPENCER EVAN
Amount
Date
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
Desc
DISCONTINUED
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
DISCONTINUED
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
********************************************************************************
6/01/2000
6/09/2000
6/21/2000
6/21/2000
6/29/2000
8/18/2000
9/12/2000
9/18/2000
9/20/2000
9/25/2000
10/18/2000
11/22/2000
- - - - - - - - - - - - - FIRST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litiqant.: OCKER BENJAMIN G
SERVED : 6/08/00 COMPL
Costs"..: $36.06 Pd By: ANGINO & ROVNER 06/09/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN G OCKER'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/17/00 - IN RE PRELIMINARY OJECTION OF
DEFT - DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED
8/18/00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER TO PLFF
COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFENDNATS EVAN SPENCER ROBERT SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER TO
DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS
ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES E HADDICK JR -
ATTY FOR DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
,&.,-=
PYS510
2000-03372
~~" -"
J...
-~,
"~^- .
RYDER
CUrnber,.land County prothonotarY's~,ffice
o Civil Case Print g
BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
2
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type."..: COMPLAINT
Judgment. , , . . . . 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
1/16/2001 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT - BY
DEFT
2/05/2001
3/29/2001
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
3/31/2003
Filed..."", :
Time,...."" :
Execution Date
Jury Trial, . . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1,:
Hiqher Crt 2,:
LORI ADAMCIK KARISS
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
ESQ FOR
----------~--------------------------------------------------------
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE - FOR JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFT - BY KARL E
ROMINGER ESQ FOR KIMBERLY A RUDY ESQ
----------~--------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN
G OCKER - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BY BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF ADDAMS & RUNDLE AND ENTER
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFT BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -
BY LORI LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN COCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 - IN RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - FOR THE
REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION FILED THIS DATE IN THE CASE OF
WALTER ARMSTRONG V BENJAMIN OCKER ET AL 00-3488 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED - THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT OCKER IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS DISMISSED AS TO
HIM - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 11/9/01
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PA ON THE ORDER OF 11/9/01 -
BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1967 MDA 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT AND OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - DATED
1/22/02 - TEH REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION FILED IN COMPANION CASE DOCKETED AT 2000-3488 CIVIL COPY
ATTACHED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 1/23/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 3/5/02 - THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE 11//9/01
ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER
AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACION AS TO HIM, ACCORDINGLY, THE
APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED , - P WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK OF
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA MIDDLE DISTRICT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 4/11/02 FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF PA - THIS APPEAL HAS
BEEN TAKEN FROM 11/901 ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
OF BENJAMN G. OCKER AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION AS TO
HIM. A FINAL ODER IS ANY ORDER THAT DISPOSES OF ALL CLAIMS AND
ALL PARTIES, ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED - PER
CURIAM - CERTIFIED BY PATRICIA A WHITTAKER CHIEF CLERK OF
SUUPERIOR COURT OF PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO PARAP 1312 STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTION BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ATTY FOR PLFF
--------------------------------------------------------
-----------
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO PA.R,A...P.1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDO, J
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/26/03 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL SCHEDULED -
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF HTE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS ARE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL A NONJURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULED IN THIS
.,,..
PAGE 00.
1 - 2
3
4 - 8
9 - 10
11-13
PYS510
2000-03372
~~
_h,
V"~i!W;li
~ U~
~mberland County prothonotarO.. Office
V Civil Case Print .
RYDER BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
Page
3
Reference No, , :
Case Type,.",: COMPLAINT
Judgment,"'" ,00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc, :
------------ Case Comments -------------
5/23/2003
5/27/2003
5/28/2003
5/23/2003
6/02/2003
6/09/2003
6/13/2003
6/19/2003
6/26/2003
7/09/2003
7/14/2003
7/14/2003
7/18/2003
7/18/2003
7/28/2003
MATTERON 5/23/03 AT 8:30 AM - BY THE
MAILED
Filed, , , , , , , . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial, , , ,
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1,:
Higher Crt 2.:
COURT EDWARD E GUIDO
J COPIES
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
----------------------~--------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF FACTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/23/03 - IN RE STIPULATIN FILED BY PARTIES
- WE FIND THE DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
WERE NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
FACTOR IN CAUSING THE INJURIES TO PLFFS WE APPORTION CAUSAL
NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT TO DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY 75 PERCENT TO DEFT
EVAN SPENCER - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF FACTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ AND RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD THE
VERDICT - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ FOR ADDITIONAL DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/12/03 - A RULE IS ISSUED UPON ALL PARTIES
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION TO ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE TRANTED - RULE 10 DAYS AFTER SERVICE - BY
THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENT RESPONSE TO POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL
DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCKESQ FOR PLFF
ORDER-=-DATED-6!20!03-=-IN-RE-POST=TRIAL-MOTION-OP-EVAN7SPENCER-=--
ARGUMENT ON THE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADD I TONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
IS SCHEDULED FOR 7/7/03 AT 8;45 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - THE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS OF
ADDITONAL ];)EFT AND HAVING HEARING ARGUMENT THEREON IT IS ORDER AND
DIRECTED THE PLFF IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICTS
- UPON ENTRY OF THE JUDMENTS THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO MARK
THE ACTION AGAINST TADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED
DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOIN
TORTFEASOR RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E
GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFF BONNIE RYDER PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF THE HON
EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFF BONNIE RYDER AND AGAINST
THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY AND ENTER JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST PLFF BONNIE RYDER
PURSUANT TO THE 5/23/03 ORDER AND THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE
7/7/03 ORDER OF THE HON EDWARD E GUIDO AND MARK THE ACTION AGAINST
ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER "SETLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY
EXECUTED,- RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ - ATTY FOR PLFF"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
NOTICE-OP-APPEAL-TO-SUPERIOR-COURT-PROM-ORDER-op-ii!9!Oi-=-gy------
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PROOF OF SERVICE FOR NOTICE OF APPEAL - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1174 MDA 2003
.ill
I" '"
-~
PYS510
~mberland County prothonotarO"", Office
" Civil Case Print '
RYDER BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
Page
4
2000-03372
PAGE W.
111
Reference No. . :
Case Type.,.,.: COMPLAINT
Judgment.." '. .00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc, :
------------ Case Comments -------------
7/29/2003
Filed, . . , . . , , :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial, , , .
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1,:
Hiqher Crt 2.:
ORDER DATED 5/6/03 - IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF - IN ACCORDANCE
WITH RULE 1925 OF THE RULES OF APPELLAE PROCEDURE THE PLFF HAVING
FILED A NOTICE OF APPEAL THE APPELLANT IS DIRECTED TO FILE OF
RECORD WITHIN FOURTEEN (14) DAYS HEREOF AND SERVE UPON THE
UNDERSIGNED A CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
BY TE COURT - EDDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 7/30/03
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL -
BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
AMENDED ORDER - DATED 8/8/03 - IN RE APPEAL OF PLFF - THE
APPELLANT IS DIRECTED TO FILE OF RECORD WITHIN 14 DAYS HEREOF AND
SERVE UPON THE UNDERSIGNED A CONCISE STATEMENT OF MATTERS
COMPLAINED OF ON THE APPEAL - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
IN RE OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - DATED 10/10/03 - PLAINTIFF
IS SEEKING REVIEW OF OUR ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER'S
MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - THE REASONS FOR OUR DECISION TO
GRANT THE MOTION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN OUR OPINION GRANTING A
SIMILAR MOTION IN THE COMPANION CASE OF ARMSTRONG V OCKER ET AL
FILED AT 2000 CIVIL 3488 - A COPY OF THAT OPINION AND ORDER ARE
ATTACHED HERETO - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 10/13/03
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY - - - - - - - - - - - -
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1~ - 16
8/08/2003
17
8/11/2003
18 - 25
10/10/2003
********************************************************************************
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits Beq Bal Pvmts/Adl End Bal *
********************************~********~**************************************
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
APPEAL
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMTZDEFAULT
JDMTi'DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
APPEAL
35,00
,50
5.00
5.00
30,00
9.00
9,00
9,00
5,00
30,00
35,00
,50
5,00
5,00
30,00
9,00
9,00
9.00
5,00
30.00
,00
,00
,00
,00
,00
.00
,00
,00
,00
,00
------------
,00
137,50
13 7,50
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
nwe COPY FROM RecoRD
1fl1'estImOny wtlereof, I here unto set my lIInG
<}."d the' of~! at .~ ~
inl C>
/
;
_ L ~
r'
"m u: >]' M~ ::;, ',,',__C ,; ''-:'1)''
CO'_,
o
o
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
} Ss:
I, Curtis R. Long , Prothonotary
of the Court of Common Pleas in and for said
County, do hereby certify that the foregoing is a
full, true and correct copy of the whole record of the
case therein stated, wherein
Bonnie Ryder
In TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have
this 20th
Plaintiff,EYi\aj amin Ocker v.
Ryan Spencer, Robert Spencer,
Kimberly A. Rudv
Defendant _, as the same remains of record
before the said Court at No, 00-3372 of
Civil Term, A,D, 19_,
hereunto set my hand and affixed the seal of said Court
day of October , D" ~03 .
I, Georqe E. Hoffer President Judge of the Ninth
Judicial District, composed of the County of Cumberland, do certify that
Curt ~us R. Lonq , by whom the annexed record, certificate and
attestation were made and given, and who, in his own proper handwriting, thereunto subscribed his name
and affixed the seal of the Court of Common Pleas of said County, was, at the time of so doing, and now is
Prothonotary in and for said County of Cumberland in
the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, duly commissioned and qualified to all of whose acts as such full faith
and credit are and ought to be given as well in Courts of judicature a ewer a d that the said record,
certificate and attestation are in due form of law and made by t c
P sident Judge
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania
County of Cumberland
} ss:
I, ('l1T+; co R Lnng , Prothonotary of the Court of Common Pleas in
and for the said County, do certify that the Honorable (;pnT!Jp 1': HnffPT, P ,T
by whom the foregoing attestation was made, and who has thereunto subscribed his name, was, at the time
of making thereof, and still is President Judge of the Court of Common Pleas, Orphan' Court and Court of
Quarter Sessions of the Peace in and for said County, duly Commissioned and qualified; to all whose acts
as such full faith and credit are and ought to be given, as well in Courts of judicature as elsewhere,
IN TESTIMONY WHEREOF, I have hereunto
set my hand and affixed the seal said Court this
20t-h ay of Octobe AD, ~03 ,
'r..r.",", 'l.j~.fI._~~~MliIlIllll'IIUffll_UiUlJ1.~I:{Lj~~!llliliB~:'!lI--,l-".JfflnlL!JL' "~ ", - ~.'Ulil-'
~iU.iI<llnl
" ~
o
0,,'
"
'" ('l :;> 0 'T1 Z Z
::I 0 0 " ~ !" !"
~ ~ 3 a 0
" ~ 3
~ ~ r
"
c. '"
., ~
::I '"
C. :::
J1 -=
" -
c. ... <:
"'l
"" - "
'" ~
~
0 "
~
=
'"
.. ('l .., ..,
a 0 " "
" = ~ ~
0 0 3 3
0 ~ ('l
0
.. I 0 ~ ~
.;! ;- " I I
::I
~
,. '<
r-" ,_,_'^;
.
,
.
o
,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
NO. 00-3372 Civil Term
Defendant
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT
Please enter judgment in favor of Defendant Benjamin G, Ocker and against Plaintiff
.f
Bonnie Ryder pursuant to the November 9,2001, Order of The Honorable Edward E, Guido,
Please enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder and against the Additional
j Defendants Evan Spencer ani Kimberly A. Rudy and enter judgment in favor of Additional
Defendant Robert Spencer against Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder pursuant to the May 23, 2003, Order
mark
and the terms set forth in the July 7, 2003, Order of The Honorable Edward E, Guido, andithe action
against Additional Defendant Evan Spencer
"Settled, Discontinued and Released ,in
Accordance With the Terms of a Joint
Tortfessor Previously Executed." *
Richard A
LD, No, 4
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Date: July 14, 2003 Counsel for Plaintiff
* In accordanmce with telephone conversation
with atty Richard Sadlock, Esq. 7-14-03 JHS
214526.llRASIMLB
,
.
.
.
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcy L Brymesser, an employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P,C" do hereby
certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PRAECIPE TO ENTER
JUDGMENT on the following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested
addressed as follows:
Charles E, Haddick, JI., Esquire
Marshall & Haddick, P,C,
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl E, Rominger, Esquire
Rominger & Bayley
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Hanft & Knight, P.C,
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, P A 17013
~~OJAfA
Mar y L. messe
Date: July 14, 2003
ii
I'
II 261526JlRASIMLB
II
J
..
e'
,-~~ -_.-
'",,","~ ~".lUll-
'RiBll1~ ,.-.,-1'
c
~<)}
",_"-~-,,I< - _~__~_"_~~.
_ ~ ,,-i..~ ';'.' - - , -
\'1
,
o
.
~ ~ '--...J ,~ 0 0 0
~ C W 'T1
~/ f ;1;": r_ ,...j
. -ocx; ,.- :_,~~\ ;',1;
mp' r
;~ Z:T~
0') 21- .:.:2.r::D
--- (~ ~~. -t- ' J ~__)
~ -J c::.t r-j" ":-~~{-S
<~ -0 -,...;-T;
Q ~ J>r-' ::s -. ;.:5-r;
ZC-', '--7()
<:::::. <l,..> 5c~ ~ ;;~f~n
i '~
e><::I A":: N ""
Ii;' I ~~ ::2 :0
~ c..J.l \ -<
Y I ?v I ,.j
-J I ~\
~ ,
.,., i d:
~ c:!. ,
.....j
\
-,
~
C>
'^"
f
~
,
'".<. ~ ~_.
-.
.
. .
o
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
NO, 00-3372 Civil Term
Defendant
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this Ie.{ -4.. day of
--
J "Illy
, 2003, judgment is
entered in favor of Defendant Benjamin G, Ocker pursuant to the November 9, 2001, Order of
The Honorable Edward E, Guido and against Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder.
AND NOW, this ~cf ~
day of
,j~ly
, 2003, judgment is
entered in favor of Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder and against the Additional Defendants Evan Spencer
and Kimberly A. Rudy and in favor of Additional Defendant Robert Spencer against Plaintiff
Ryder pursuant to the May 23, 2001 Order.
~
261526.lIRAS\MLB
.3
.'.';1
.
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant NO, 00-3372 Civil Term
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder hereby appeals to the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on November 9, 2001. This Order has
been reduced to judgment and entered in the docket, as evidenced by the attached copy of the
docket entry,
A
Ri ard , sqmre
LD, No, 47281
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, P A 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
Date: July 17, 2003
214528.llRASIMLB
~
"'''';0<.'''---
PYS510
2000-03372
~ ~
I~
"t!Ilj"",'
."~ ,
~" ,-~~
. ~.~
RYDER
cumber, .land County prothonotarY's~"",ffice
OCi vil Case Inquiry 0
BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
1
Page
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment. ' . . . . .00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
Filed, , . . . . . . :
Time......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . , ,
Disposed Date,
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1967 MDA2001
********************************************************************************
Geheral Index Attorney Info
RYDER BONNIE
273 PLAZA DRIVE
BOILING:SPRINGS PA 17007
OCKER BENJAMIN G
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCEREVAN
SPENCER 'ROBERT
RUDY KIMBERLY A
Judgment Index
SPENCER EVAN
RYDER BONNIE
SPENCER EVAN
RUDY KIMBERLY A
RYDER BONNIE
SPENCER EVAN
PLAINTIFF
SADLOCK RICHARD A
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
DEFENDANT
y
Y
Y
Amount
Date
7/.14/.2003
71.141.2003
71.141.2003
71.141.2003
71.141.2003
7/14/2003
Desc
DISCONTINUED
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
DISCONTINUED
********************************************************************************
* Date Entries *
*************'*******************************************************************
6/01/2000
6/09/2000
6/21/2000
6/21/2000
6/29/2000
8/18/2000
9/12/2000
9/18/2000
9/20/2000
9/25/2000
10/18/2000
11/22/2000
1/16/2001
COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
FIRST ENTRY
SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: O~KER BENJAMIN G
SERVED : 6/08/00 COMPL
Costs....: $36.06 Pd By: ANGINO & ROVNER 06/09/2000
-------------------------------------------------------------------
BENJAMIN G OCKER'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/17/00 - IN RE PRELIMINARY OJECTION OF
DEFT - DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED
8/18/00
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER WITH NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER TO PLFF
COMPLAINT
JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFENDNAT BENJAMIN G OCKER AGAINST ADDITIONAL
DEFENDNATS EVAN SPENCER ROBERT SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ANSWER OF ADDITIONAL DEFENDANTS EVAN SPENCER AND ROBERT SPENCER TO
DEFENDANT'S COMPLAINT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS
ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - CHARLES E HADDICK JR -
ATTY FOR DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR
DEFT
5
,>ilioI...."""'...~...- ~ .-.,...'. "'h"= ~
PYS510
2000-03372
~,~ ,,_~ l I
e '""",-_,,-,
.-.
J... - ~'''''''i
RYDER
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
t:)Civil Case Inquiry ~
BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
2
Page
Reference No.. :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment...... .00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
2/05/2001
3/29/2001
3/29/2001
4/09/2001
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1123/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
3/31/2003
6/01/2000
3:35
0100/0000
0/00/0000
1967 MDA2001
Filed. . . . . . . . :
Time.,....... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Hiqher Crt 2.:
ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE - FOR JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFT - BY KARL E
ROMINGER ESQ FOR KIMBERLY A RUDY ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN
G OCKER - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BY BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE OF ADDAMS & RUNDLE AND ENTER
THE APPEARANCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFT BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANTS CROSS-MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -
BY LORI LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN COCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 - IN RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - FOR THE
REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION FILED THIS DATE IN THE CASE OF
WALTER ARMSTRONG V BENJAMIN OCKER ET AL 00-3488 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED - THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT OCKER IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION IS DISMISSED AS TO
HIM - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 11/9/01
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE OF APPEAL TO SUPERIOR COURT OF PA ON THE ORDER OF 11/9/01 -
BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1967 MDA 2001
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT AND OPINION PURSUANT TO PA RAP 1925 - DATED
1/22/02 - TEH REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION FILED IN COMPANION CASE DOCKETED AT 2000-3488 CIVIL/COPY
ATTACHED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 1/23 02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 3/5/02 - THIS APPEAL HAS BEEN TAKEN FROM THE 11//9/01
ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER
AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACION AS TO HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE
APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED. - P WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK OF
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA MIDDLE DISTRICT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 4/11/02 FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF PA - THIS APPEAL HAS
BEEN TAKEN FROM 11/901 ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
OF BENJAMN G. OCKER AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION AS TO
HIM. A FINAL ODER IS ANY ORDER THAT DISPOSES OF ALL CLAIMS AND
ALL PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED - PER
CURIAM - CERTIFIED BY PATRICIA A WHITTAKER CHIEF CLERK OF
SUUPERIOR COURT OF PA
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL PURSUANT TO PARAP 1312 STATEMENT
OF JURISDICTION BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ATTY FOR PLFF
------------~------------------------------------------------------
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO PA.R.A...P.1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDO, J
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 3/26/03 - IN RE NONJURY TRIAL SCHEDULED -
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF HTE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS ARE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL A NONJURY TRIAL IS SCHEDULED IN THIS
MATTERON 5/23/03 AT 8:30 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
~
PYS510
2000-03372
-~
.L
-
_J_
RYDER
CUmb~,l, and County prothonotarY's~",.""ffice
"Ci vil Case Inquiry U
BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
Judgment. . . . . . .00
J~dge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Dlsposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
5/23/2003
5/27/2003
5/28/2003
5/23/2003
6/02/2003
6/09/2003
6/13/2003
6/19/2003
6/26/2003
7/09/2003
7/14/200,3
7/14/2003
Filed..."... :
Time..,...... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . .
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
a1ill-"' - ;';"""
Page
3
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1967 MDA2001
STIPULATION OF FACTS
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 5/23/03 - IN RE STIPULATIN FILED BY PARTIES
- WE FIND THE DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY AND ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
WERE NEGLIGENT AND THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
FACTOR IN CAUSING THE INJURIES TO PLFFS WE APPORTION CAUSAL
NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT TO DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY 75 PERCENT TO DEFT
EVAN SPENCER - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF COUNSEL - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
STIPULATION OF FACTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ AND RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD THE
VERDICT - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ FOR ADDITIONAL DEFT
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 6/12/03 - A RULE IS ISSUED UPON ALL PARTIES
TO SHOW CAUSE WHY THE POST TRIAL MOTION TO ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE TRANTED - RULE 10 DAYS AFTER SERVICE - BY
THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PLAINTIFF'S SUPPLEMENT RESPONSE TO POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL
DEFT EVAN SPENCER - BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER - DATED 6/20/03 - IN RE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF EVAN SPENCER -
ARGUMENT ON THE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
IS SCHEDULED FOR 7/7/03 AT 8;45 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - THE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS OF
ADDITONAL DEFT AND HAVING HEARING ARGUMENT THEREON IT IS ORDER AND
DIRECTED THE PLFF IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICTS
- UPON ENTRY OF THE JUDMENTS THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO MARK
THE ACTION AGAINST TADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETTLED
DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOIN
TORTFEASOR RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E
GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
-------------------------------------------------------------------
PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFF BONNIE RYDER PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF THE HON
EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFF BONNIE RYDER AND AGAINST
THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY AND ENTER JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST PLFF BONNIE RYDER
PURSUANT TO THE 5/23/03 ORDER AND THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE
7/7/03 ORDER OF THE RON EDWARD E GUIDO AND MARK THE ACTION AGAINST
ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER "SETLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY
EXECUTED.- RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ - ATTY FOR PLFF"
-------------------------------------------------------------------
NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - LAST ENTRY
COMPLAINT
TAX ON CMPLT
SETTLEMENT
JCP FEE
35.00
.50
5.00
5.00
35.00
.50
5.00
5.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
********************************************************************************
* Escrow Information *
* Fees & Debits Beo Bal Pvmts/Adl End Bal *
*****************************************~******~*******************************
7
CUmber, I" and County prothonotaryIS~,."ffice
GCi vi! Case Inquiry V
BONNIE (vs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
" -~.
J
PYS510
2000-03372
RYDER
Reference No. . :
Case Type.....: COMPLAINT
JudgmenT: . . . . . ' . 00
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc. :
------------ Case Comments -------------
APPEAL
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMT!DEFAULT
JDMT!DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
30.00 30.00
9.00 9.00
9.00 9.00
9.00 9.00
5.00 5.00
------------------------
107.50 107.50
. I
~,'-
"'r.iL
Page
4
Filed. . . . . . . , :
Time......", :
Execution Date
Jury Trial. . . ,
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
.00
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/0000
0/00/0000
1967 MDA2001
********************************************************************************
* End of Case Information *
********************************************************************************
TRUE t..OPV FROMRECORO
III T estlll".ony whereof, I here untflll8t my IIafiIJ
and the~i:l! 01 sz,:" at Carlisle,~, .
fhl j~da, ~'"!J
...
~
8
_.1 ,. ~W*Rir,~,~~~,"~q";;ID'-_"~~""~"~'~"-,j"'!I!J]!ift!~;:l;dJ;<::'1'I-lC'i'""_'_Ji,khtE,,"'.~,iM?""""~W_W"'lillMii\>i~{W~~tifii!L~~-lL_~~~._'~~,j,~~--
--.. ~ ~m!iSI~~-"-"""
,4"""\
';~\W;)
~J
~ (0 ""'" 0 c.
~ c (.., 0
11.. <'" "
l --, (-
n2t';, c: :--::J
~p~:' r- ,:JJ
~ ~ (} :Tj
0 -..... --' 0::.- C)
~e.: --_~d
() ~ p::) ~r~:; :s ~O;~ +i
- -;:(:")
( ~ .:srq
..0 C> ~._J '" i.::!
'6' J -(~ In ::0
-<
~r!jJ
.
....,^
.'
.
.
BONNIE RYDER,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v,
BENJAMIN G, OCKER,
Defendant NO, 00-3372 Civil Term
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 1 ih day of July, 2003, a true and correct copy of the NOTICE
OF APPEAL was served upon the following persons and in the manner indicated below, which
service satisfies the requirements of PA,R,A,P , 121:
Service bv First Class United States Mail. posta2e prepaid:
Charles E, Haddick, Jr., Esquire William A. Addams, Esquire
LD, No. 55666 LD, No, 06265
Marshall & Haddick, P,C, Hanft & Knight, P,C,
20 South 36th Street 19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
CampHill,PA l7011 Carlisle,PA 17013
(717) 731-4800 (717) 249-5373
Counsel for Defendant Benjamin G, Ocker Counsel for Additional Defendants
Evan Spencer and Robert Spencer
Karl E, Rominger, Esquire
l.D, No, 81924
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle,PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Counsel for Additional Defendant Kimberly A. Rudy
214528.llRASIMLB
q
.
.
Personal Service:
The Honorable Edward E, Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
Rick Pierce, Court Administrator
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, P A 17013
NOTE:Appeal from Order following Argument before the Court En Banc-
no court report or transcript involved,
Ric . Sad
, ,No, 47281
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
239667,[ IRASIMLB
-.\
/6
, ~.' ,. ,
,'...........~.'
i,'" ".(1 t~'"-
-.~ ,~ - ~
~~-,
.f\',;;'
~
.~, ,,~
f "-.' .~-..-', ~ '-
. -~
~~, .," ,,;,
'"
"""1
o
.-'0""
0 C'J 0
C c,....) -n
$':
,; r; ,- -n
rll r"- -
" 1--::;:
'.-;....,. ~ :",m
c -!'JO
en .i:_ CD '; )c';
..::<: =--'::i ~)
~ ''[] ..,--T,
, ....- @~
~;; -
:>~ ::.,,)
:~.,~ "....1
/ f"....") ::S:"
-::--;, Xl
--: .-J -<
#~~
~
, ..
3:38 P,M,
.
Appea1 Docket Sheet
Docket Number: tlUiA.MR~;t
Page 1 of 3
July 23, 2003
.L=3~1-;{--_J
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
F__"
..
Bonnie Ryder, Appellant
v,
Benjamin G, Ocker
v,
Evan Sp'encer, Robert Spencer, and Kimberly A. Rudy
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Case Status: Active
Case Processing Status: July 22, 2003
Journal Number:
Case Category: Civil
Consolidated Docket Nos.:
Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received
Next EV~nt Type: Original Record Received
Awaiting Original Record
CaseType:
Related Docket Nos.:
Civil Action Law
1175 MDA 2003
1176 MDA 2003
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Due Date: August 6, 2003
Next Event Due Dat~em~ll~~
Same Issue(s)
Same Issue(s)
7/23/2003 ,
3023
1/
.;;""'-
. "-
3:38 P,M,
~ '
,~
"'i
"~"k
. ~..
o
"
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1174 MDA 2003
Page 2 of 3
July 23, 2003
-
Appellant
ProSe:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
7/23/2003
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Ryder, Bonnie
Appoint Counsel Status:
No
Appellant Attorney Information:
Attorney: Sadlock, Richard Alan
Bar No,: 47281 Law Firm: Angino & Rovner, P,C,
Address: Angino & Rovner, P,C.
4503 N, Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone No,: (717)238-6791 Fax No,: (717)238-5610
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address: rsadlock@angino-rovneLcom
Receive E-Mail: No
Ocker, Benjamin G,
Appoint Counsel Status:
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Haddick, Charles E.
Bar No,: 55666 Law Firm: Marshall, Smith & Haddick, P,C,
Address: Marshall & Haddick PC
20 S 36th Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Phone No,: (717)731-4800 Fax No.: (717)731-4803
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address;
Receive E-Mail: No
Spencer, Evan & Robert
Appoint Counsel Status:
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Addams, William A.
Bar No,: 06265 Law Firm: Hanft & Knight, P,C,
Address: Hanft & Knight PC
19 Brookwood Ave Ste 106
Carlisle, PA 17013-9142
Phone No,: (717)249-5373 Fax No.: (717)249-0457
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Mail: No
Rudy, Kimberly A.
Appoint Counsel Status:
3023
Idv
,c>oI
_,L~~
['-
"
~- -, --
" '
. ...
3:38 P.M.
o
o
Appeal Docket Sheet Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Docket Number: 1174 MDA 2003
Page3of3 ..
July 23, 2003
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Rominger, Karl Ernst
Bar No,: 81924 Law Firm:
Address: 155 S Hanover St
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone No.: (717)241-6070 Fax No,: (717)241-6878
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Mail: No
FEE INFORMATION
Fee Date
7/23/03
Fee Name
Notice of Appeal
TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION
Fee Amt
Paid
Amount
Receipt Number
Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
County: Cumberland
Date of Order Appealed From: July 14, 2003
Date Documents Received: July 22, 2003
Order Type: Judgment Entered
Division: Civil
Judicial District: 9
Date Notice of Appeal Filed: July 18, 2003
OTN:
Judge:
Guido, Edward E.
Judge
Lower Court Docket No.: 00-3372
ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS
Original Record Item
Filed Date
Content/Description
Date of Remand of Record:
BRIEFS
Flied Date
DOCKET ENTRIES
Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type
Notice of Appeal Filed
Filed By
July 22, 2003
Appellant
Ryder, Bonnie
July 23, 2003
Docketing Statement Exited (Civil)
Middle District Filing Office
7/23/2003
3023
13
,~ ~
j~il~Mi~Ji~~~.jj,j;if4'l!I,jJil.~~'~%L-,ci"m"{,,,'iJi,;i.i;;.,."';jj,,'y;lo,}<g"~~~~~-'-=,-~~~ "~,~ ltt;A
1".....
....jii!
~0
"'.- ""'~~~'" ~"-~'''''1iiilllarriC~~
C)
o
c:
;;-
~~-'>,'
('111(","
2'C~:
Zt',
(..'))>
('$.'
,,;:C~
Pc
ijJ;C:
.PS;:
5
-<
-
s
.
C)
<'0
o
'"1
'-
c:::;
r-
~-:!
i'h~i
.',:--rn
.j) \.;
>:-;6
J;j'-;
'o!'-)
CSrn
$
-<
N
co
"""
::Jt:
-
-
-
- ..,
"' "'''''. -,^
~ ,
"',l' ,,_n "'~,
"
.
.
BONNIE RYDER,
Plaintiff
vs,
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYL VANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3372 CIVIL
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
vs,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
'\
ORDER
AND NOW, May 6, 2003, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiff having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is directed to file of record,
within fourteen (14) days hereof and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of the
matters complained of on the appeal.
B
Edward E, Guido, J.
........- Richard A, Sadlock, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
.....charles E, Haddick, Jr., Esquire
For the Defendant
>
L~
f1 R~5
07~ 30-03
.,Karl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
(;<William Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
)
JLf
:~:)iIl
'"n;:~::';;2;~:~
~1t.-'"'l
,
.~ ~ ,
RLED-O\'F\CE
OF T' ,0' ,."J(lTc'n~, 'CT~nY
.f11'.~ iC.; ",' I i :.~i '. ,) n
03JUL29 flJIII::i3
CUrA3':\\! e,L) OJUNTY
'P8~NSY0JAI'l\A
Cl
,...~H~
-, "--'
L&f
/
..
.
~ ~
.,.~-
"""~
~.;iI'
" ~e:l.o" .~~~ti~_" <., ,J-4;ll;i\Ui,llJ._
-"";':~'i(;:
~~" '1",.J-l",:~ ~~'~;'f'
,
.
0',
..
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Plaintiff
v,
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant NO, 00-3372 Civil Term
v,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S CONCISE STATEMENT
OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Plaintiff, by her attorneys, Angino & Rovner, p,c. have filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Trial Court's grant of Defendant Benjamin Ocker's Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to
your Court's Order, Plaintiff submits the following issues will be raised on appeal:
1. Did the Trial Court err in granting Defendant Benjamin Ocker's Motion for
Summary Judgment and by ruling that for dram shop/social host liability the fact that the
provider of alcohol Was an adult was immaterial and that to be liable, the provider must be at
least 21 years old?
2, In a dram shop/social host case, should liability of the provider of alcohol be
premised on his legal status as an adult and not his age?
These issues have been preserved for appeal.
ANGINO & ROVNER, P,C.
, hard A, Sadlock, E re
D, No, 47281
4 Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 23 8-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
Date: August 7, 2003
264238.1\RASIMLB
If)
.
.
o
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcy L. Brymesser, ail employee of the law firm of Angino & Rovner, P,c., do hereby
certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S CONCISE
STATEMENT on the following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested
addressed as follows:
Charles E. Haddick, Jr" Esquire
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl E, Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, P A 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Law Office of Michael J. Hanft
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
~,eJj~r~
Date: August 7, 2003
264238,\ IRAS\MLB
I~
~
"'i.IIl"
-. '"-illDi'-'iC
~--"
"~~~1;~r"-"';'"
~
'\i""
~I{J
"
.~~,' ,.. ~
,'--
~,'
~
.
(") C) 0
C >..;-' -n
:s: ~
-o!Tj
fT1 fe, ,',-) ----
Z:J,-", ;".
~?~- , ~:~~
OJ-
~c: .-i':'
)>c:: _..~. ':J ;;::::
ZC) u
j\,) ':"m
:l>E: c~
z ::,.) j;
:< ::IJ
..r:- -<
.
~
o
BONNIE RYDER,
Plaintiff
vs.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
vs.
EVANSPENCER,ROBERT
SPENCER, and KIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
- > ,-' ;;I,~
4<'.""-
.
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3372 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, August 8, 2003, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiff having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is directed to file of record,
within fourteen (14) days hereof and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of the
matters complained of on the appeal.
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
For the Defendant
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
William Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
Edward E. Guido, 1.
. . A. J ~_JI-03
~~~
Q-,
[i
rI
,i
'I
I'
Ii
Ii
I
II
II
II
il
ii
II
il
Ii
I:
"
Ii
~ I
"
"
'I
'I
i
/7
"
~ ~
""..'1
~/
'" , , ~. ,,~" Ir ~ ~ ~
FlLED~O~=FJCE
,,- h-.,-...., 1".11'"'''' 'JY
"...n- : - or,. :! '~~,_ h', 1_", : lle.!'1
03 fiUr, I! il:1 9: 2 !
C' j',,;<''''. .1. ..,.1 ....;",
VJ\"'.~'~I 11....:-':' 'iL...' ,->.....,:,),\; I 1
PENNSYLVANIA
, '1
~ _ _~,_ . .e_,'<-- -
~.--
01
~.,.,),
[ .
\iIIlfj'
">:'T<!l~iIl!i'~ "___"
M~~_!;\lIlitm"!:'!!i!,"~J!~;lrn~MW'W1~~~~~c1!i91l"'PJf!l~~IIl!l!!J~~ ~~'r-'
,~~ ~
,W..
_ h .:" ., . - '""_ ~_
-1.
" t.L;
"
0",
I'
BONNIE RYDER
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
: NO. 2000-3372 CIVIL TERM
V.
EVAN SPENCER, : CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. RAP. 1925
Guido, J., October 10 ,2003
Plaintiff is seeking review of our order granting Defendant Benjamin Ocker's
Motion for Summary Judgment. The reasons for our decision to grant the motion are
fully set forth in our opinion granting a similar motion in the companion case of
Armstrong v. Ocker, et at filed at 2000 Civil 3488. A copy of that opinion and order are
attached hereto.
10/10/0 ~
DATE:
v'llichard A. Sadlock, Esquire
voCharles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Edward E. Guido, J.
?
~:d.
~~
I ()- J 3 - c:f::>
vKarl E. Rominger, Esquire
vWilliam A. Addams, Esquire
:sld
/3
i1
k...
- ill ~
()
;-~
MjiI!IIIlIlrnllif~J ',;,_. ,...,.,
dJ~
(")
-oil
cpq:\
~i~~
~;~~':,
j'~;
.c~_~
-"")
-,
,""'~\
\t:lillf
o
0"
e:>
n
:...,
-
o
Q\
-~;
"'",'
.~>
~'n
.~,~
-i...J
':~~~-~~
.:~2~~\
d
:X-l
-<..
~
::.?
r...)
C"..~")!~!!i~ ~~'I;'~'ffli~~~irl~~JJj[l!'llimil~~~IIl~'"~"""f__
~"" ,=
"
""'......... "<
<~
1
." -~~~._,.........
~'''''''-''''~ ~~.....'
" <
""""""~"::
o
o
COpy
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
: NO, 2000-3488 CIVIL
V.
EVAN SPENCER AND CIVIL ACTION - LAW
ROBERT SPENCER,
Additional Defendants
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT,
OFDEFENDANTBENJANUNOCKER
BEFORE HOFFER. P.J., OLER, GUIDO, JJ;
AND NOW, this
ORDER OF COURT
q~
day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth
in the attached opinion, plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The
Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is
dismissed as to him.
'L1i,~~urt' )
~~~.
7~
Edward E. Guido, J.
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Mr. Marlin Rudy
Charles E. Haddick, JI., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
, r ' '(lnL\ ~> d 000 3/'is'lOr,/V:o/'J
l'-iLms,f,2f!rh D v, -' ,-'>-
/~
.' ,~"__1
e,' ,,~-:"',
~-"
-
..om ~~
"~". .,......,. ~
J... ~ "
o
o
WALTER ARMSTRONG, : IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
Plaintiff : CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER, : NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER and
ROBERT SPENCER,
j\.dditional Defendants
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
)
BEFORE HOFFER P.I., OLER GUIDO, n.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
The above plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident
involving a car driven by additional defendant Evan Spencer. Currently before us are the
motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and the cross motion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Benjamin Ocker. ,
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure 1035.2 provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
:Rule 1035.2 Motion
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but within such time as not to
unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary judgment
in whole or in part as a matter oflaw
,"",..-,'-"
. ~~
':i9f""",
'-.J/
db
-""""-"'~"-""
~ -~" ~
..~'~ ~", ~ "
_~L_. ~. -~- ~" =~
~ - ."
, NQ. 2000-3488 CIVIL ~
o
(1) whenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a
necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be
established by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of discovery relevant to the motion,
including the production of expert reports, an adverse party who
will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence
offacts essential to the cause of action or defense which in ajliry
trial would require the issues to be submitted to a jury.
Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2. In determining whether to grant a motion for summary judgment we
must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ertel v. Patriot
News Co., 544 Pa. 93, 674 A.2d 1038 (1966). Summary judgment may only be granted
in cases that are clear and free from doubt. J.H. Ex Rei. Hoffman v. Pellak, 764 A.2d 64
(Fa. Super. 2000).
\
,
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The incident giving rise to this cause of action was an automobile accident that
occurred on the evening ofJuly 10,1999. Additional defendant Evan Spencer
(hereinafter "Evan") lost control of the car he was driving and collided with the vehicle
occupied by the plaintiff.
Shortly before the accident, Evan had consumed alcohol at a party hosted by
defendant Ocker (hereinafter "Benjamin"). Both Evan and Benjamin, as well as several
other party guests, were under the age of twenty-one (21).1 The party featured a keg of
beer provided by the mother of one of the minor guests.
Gordon and Donna Ocker (hereinafter the "Ockers") are the parents ofBenjamin2
Even though Benjamin was twenty (20) years old, he was still living with them.
j
I Benjamin was twenty (20) years old at the time. .
2 Although not a party to these proceedings, Benjamin's parents were sued by plaintiff in a separate acllon.
Evan Spencer was also joined as an additional defendant in that case.
2
;!t.I;~,,'_;-,-\.2,-"c_-:;' "__i","';h,_,~"i,:'k~k" -- y
',' :~ ','. ---.;_: - "
- ",-
c2/-.
'n,i-,
_'t~L=.Jkb,"""'-"~"""
...~. ~~
~~- ~>~ ~
.....
"Iii ",!iII'~"~
~~
,.. ".
NO. 2000-3488 CNIL ~
o
However, he was free to come and go as he pleased and they treated him as an adult. He
was fully emancipated,
The Ockers were on vacation in South Carolina at the time of the party. They
were not aware that a keg party was planned in their absence. In point of fact, they
specifically prohibited any parties and forbade the consumption of alcohol in their home
while they were gone.
DISCUSSION
Plaintiffs case against Benjamin is based upon the social host theory ofliability.3
Since it is undisputed that Benjamin provided alcohol to additional defendant Evan, a
minor, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment. Benjamin argues that
) he is immune from liability under the social host doctrine because he was under twenty-
one (21) at the time he furnished the alcohol. Therefore, he contends that he is entitled to
summary judgment.
In Klein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141,470 A.2d 507 (1983) the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania recognized that "in the case of an ordinary able bodied man it is the
consumption of alcohol, rather than the furnishing ofthe alcohol, which is the proximate
cause of any subsequent occurrence." 470 A.2d 510. Consequently, it held that "there
can be no liability on the part of a social host who serves alcoholic beverages to his or her
adult guests." Id. at 511 (emphasis added). However, in a case decided the same day,
the Supreme Court held that social host liability could be imposed upon an adult who
'''The social host doctrine is a general phrase used to designate a claim in negligence against a person (the
host) who provides alcoholic beverages to another (the guest), without remuneration, where the guest then
sustains injuries, or causes injury to a third person as a result ofrus intoxicated condition. The theory IS
that the host should he liahle for the injuries as Ite is the person wlto furnished the intoxicating beverages."
Kmpes v. Heller, 536 Pa. 551, 640 A.2d '888, FNI (1994). ,
3
"~
ll~_:';
J,}.
_"__'.....'~_" ._ ~..J,~
. ~
."- .. _.,,,,,,,,,_,.,..;,;_.,,L~
.~. .1
NO. 2000-3488 CNIL ~
o
provides alcohol to a: person under twenty-one (21). Congini by Congini v. Portersville
Valve Company, 504 Pa. 157,70 A.2d 515 (1983).
Plaintiff contends that Benjamin's status as an emancipated adult should be
sufficient to impose liability under the Congini rationale. He points to the case of
Maxwell v" Keas, 433 Pa.Super. 70, 639 A.2d 1215 (1994) to support his position that, as
an adult, :benjamin should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions4
Plaintiff misinterprets the law of this Commonwealth with regard to the
imposition of social host liability. The focus of the inquiry is not the status of the actors
as minor and adult. Rather, the inquiry is limited to the age of the actors. Plaintiffs
confusion is understandable given the frequent use of the terms "minor" and "adult" by
; the various courts which have addressed the issue. However, after a careful review of
.~j
Congini, and the cases that follow, we are satisfied that the application of the social host
doctrine is based solely upon the ages of the parties.
Kapres v. Heller, 536 Pa. 551, 640 A.2d 888 (1994) would appear to be
controlling. In that case the Supreme Court refused to apply the social host doctrine to a
minor who furnished alcohol to another minor. Plaintiff argues that Kapres is not
applicable because the age of the defendant is not of record in that case. We disagree.
Whiie the Supreme Court opinion in Kapresdoes not reveal the age of the
defendant, the Superior Court opinion does. The lower appellate clearly articulated the
issue to be decided as to whether "the holding in Congini v. Portersville Valve Co. . . .
which imposed social host liability on adults who furnish alcohol to persons under the
'The Maxwell case formed the basis of a Motion for Summary Jndgment filed by Benjamin's parents in a
companion case. Armstrong v. Ocker et aI., 2029 Civil 2000. We granted the motion, holding that the
parents l1ad no dnty to eontrolthe activities of their son, an emancipated adult.
4
~...-"'"'.~~~ '"
dJ
"""""'""=
..i_lWiI,
.~ ~- 11itIl""'O>'
.. ~.~
~ ~.. ,--
..
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL ~
o
age of2l, should be extended to impose liability on persons between 18 and 21 years of
age who provide liquor to persons between 18 and 21 years of age." Kapres v. Heller,
612 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa.Super. 1992).
Furthermore, in a later case, the Superior Court specifically held that "for the
purposes of imposing social host liability a person remains a minor until he reaches age
21." Goldberg v. Delta Tau Delta, 613 A.2d 1250, 1252, (pa.Super. 1992), appeal denied
534 Pa. 639, 626 A.2d 1158 (1993). Asthe Goldberg Court went on to state:
/1
Although we find appellant's arguments persuasive, this Court is not
prepared to extend social host liability to persons under the age of21.
The Congini case, which is the seminal case in Pennsylvania
establishing a cause of action by a minor against an adult social host,
specifically limited social host liability to one who is lawfully entitled
to possess and consume alcohol andfurnishes it to one who is not so
entitled.
ld. at 1253.
Also instructive is the case of Sperando v. Commonwealth Dept of
Transportation, 630 A.2d 532 (pa. Commonwealth 1993). In that case the
Commonwealth Court framed the issue as follows:
Whether the trial court erred in holding that a person under the age of
twenty-one is immune from social host liability when he has served
alcoholic beverages to a minor, thereby enabling the minor to become
intoxicated and injure a third person. '
ld. at 533. The Sperando Court refused to follow the Superior Court decisions in Kapres
and Goldberg, supra. Rather, it held that "persons under the age of21 may be held liable
as social hosts for the consequences of furnishing other persons under the age of twenty-
one with alcohol". ld. The Supreme Court reversed Sperando in a brief per curiam
,
,
/
opinion which cited its decision in Kapres, supra. See Sperando v. Commonwealth Dept.
of Transportation, 537 Pa. 352, 643 A.2d 1079 (1994).
5
~'f
.~~, '".' ,-.
-'
> .~
-
~ "
~'"
. "'"""""" - ._,."",..
-
.' . NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL T()1
o
. .
Plaintiffs argument that an "adult" between the ages of 18 and 21 should be held
responsible for his actions is very persuasive. However, we cannot ignore the
unambiguous holdings in the above decisions; i.e. a person under the age of twenty-one is
immune from liability under the social host doctrine. Therefore, we are constrained to
deny plaintiffs motion for summary judgment and to grant that of defendant Ocker.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 9TH day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth in the
attached opinion, plaintiffs Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Motion for
Summary Judgment of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is dismissed as to
him.
\
j
/
By the Court,
Is! Edward E. Guido
Edward E. Guido, 1.
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
Marlin Rudy
:sld
6
,-c--~--'" "',:; .,-.-(,' ,",'
", i. ", '.~."
n',"',',.-!:_',
-~. ~~,
~'~ ^'~-'--
~J
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENN~,YLVANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
Plaintiff
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3372 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PRAECIPE TO ENTER JUDGMENT
Please enter judgment in favor of Defendant Benjamin G. Ocker and against Plaintiff
Bonnie Ryder pursuant to the November 9, 2001, Order of The Honorable Edward E. Guido.
Please enter judgment in favor of Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder and against the Additional
4Defendants Evan Spencer anffKimberly A. Rudy and enter judgment in favor of Additional
Defendant Robert Spencer against Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder pursuant to the May 23, 2003, Order
mark
and the terms set forth in the July 7, 2003, Order of The Honorable Edward E. Guido. and/the action
against Additional Defendant Evan Spencer
"Settled, Discontinued and Released in ANGINO ~_~, P.C.
Accordance With the Terms of a Joint ~
Tort fessor Previously Executed." *~ //~
w Richard A dlo~ire
I.D. No. 47'2'g'F
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Date: July 14, 2003 Counsel for Plaintiff
* In accordanmce with telephone conversation
with atty Richard Sadlock, Esq. 7-14-03 JHS
214526A\RAS\MLB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcy L. Brymesser, an employee of the law firm of ~Magino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby
certify that I am this day serving a true and correct copy of PRAECIPE TO ENTER
JUDGMENT on the following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested
addressed as follows:
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Marshall & Haddick, P.C.
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
Rominger & Bayley
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Hanft & Knight, P.C.
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: July 14, 2003
261526.1 ~RAS\MLB
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
Plaintiff
Vo
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3372 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL, DEMANDED
ENTRY OF JUDGMENT
AND NOW, this ][~,t day of ~ /,LLtT~ , 2003, judgment is
entered in favor of Defendant Benjamin G. Ocker pursuant to the November 9, 2001, Order of
The Honorable Edward E. Guido and against Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder.
AND NOW, this ]~¢ day of
· , , 2003, judgment is
entered in favor of Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder and against the Additional Defendants Evan Spencer
and Kimberly A. Rudy and in favor of Additional Defendant Robert Spencer against Plaintiff
Ryder pursuant to the May 23, 2001 Order.
Curt Long, Prothonotary
261526,1 ~RASLMLB
3
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Plaintiff
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3372 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL, DEMANDED
NOTICE OF APPEAL
Notice is hereby given that Plaintiff Bonnie Ryder hereby appeals to the Superior Court
of Pennsylvania from the Order entered in this matter on November 9, 2001. This Order has
been reduced to judgment and entered in the docket, as evidenced by the attached copy of the
docket entry.
Date: July 17, 2003
I.D. No. 47281
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
214528. I\RASWiLB
Page 1
PYS510 Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
2000-03372 RYDER BONNIE (rs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
Filed ........ : 6/01/2000
Reference No..: Time ......... : 3:35
Case Tv]De ..... : COMPLAINT
Ju~gmeh% ....... 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial ....
Disposed Desc.: DisDosed Date. 0/00/0000
............ Case Comments ............. Higher Crt 1.: 1967 MDA2001
Higher Crt 2.:
General Index Attorney Info
RYDER BONNIE PLAINTIFF SADLOCK RICHARD A
273 PLAZA DRIVE
BOILING SPRINGS PA 17007
OCKER BENJAMIN G DEFENDANT
31 STONE LEDGE ROAD
NEWVILLE PA 17241
SPENCER EVAN DEFENDANT Y
SPENCER ROBERT DEFENDANT Y
RUDY KIMBERLY A DEFENDANT Y
Judgment Index Amount Date Desc
SPENCER EVAN 7,~14~2003 DISCONTINUED
RYDER BONNIE 7,~14~2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
SPENCER EVAN 7,~14Z2003 PP_AECIPE JUDGMENT
RUDY KIMBERLY A 7,~14~2003 PP~AECIPE JUDGMENT
RYDER BONNIE 7,<14Z2003 PRAECIPE JUDGMENT
SPENCER EVAN 7/14/2003 DISCONTINUED
* Date Entries *
............. FIRST ENTRY ..............
6/01/2000 COMPLAINT - CIVIL ACTION
6/09/2000 SHERIFF'S RETURN FILED
Litigant.: OCKER BENJAMIN G
SERVED : 6/08/00 COMPL
Costs .... : $36.06 Pd By: ANGINO & ROVNER 06/09/2000
6/21/2000 BENJAMIN G OCKER'S PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT
6/21/2000 PRAECIPE FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - DEFENDANT'S PRELIMINARY
OBJECTIONS TO PLAINTIFFS COMPLAINT - BY CHARLES E HADDICK JR ESQ
6/29/2000 PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO DEFENDANTS PRELIMINARY OBJECTIONS
8/18/2000 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 8/17/00 - IN RE PRELIMINARY OJECTION OF
DEFT - DISMISSED - BY THE COURT EDGAR B BAYLEY J COPIES MAILED
8/18/00
9/12/2ooo .......
COMPLAINT
DEFENDNATS EVAN SPENCER ROBERT SPENCER A_ND KIMBERLY A RUDY
DEFENDAMT'S COMPLAINT
...................................................................
9/25/2000 PLAINTIFF'S REPLY TO NEW MATTER OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
...................................................................
10/18/2000 PRAECIPE TO REINSTATE JOINDER COMPLAINT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS
ESQ
ATTY FOR DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER
DEFT
...................................................................
PYS510
2000-03372
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
RYDER BONNIE (rs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
Filed ........ :
Page 2
6/Ol/2OOO
Reference No..: 3:35
Case T%zDe ..... : COMPLAINT Time ......... :
Judgmeh% ....... 00 Execution Date 0/00/0000
Judge Assigned: GUIDO EDWARD E Jury Trial ....
DisDosed Date. 0/00/0000
Disposed Desc.: - . Higher Crt 1.: 1967 MDA2001
............ Case ~ommen~s ............. Hiqner Crt 2.:
2/05/2001 ACCEPTANCE OF SERVICE - FOR JOINDER COMPLAINT OF DEFT - BY KARL E
ROMINGER ESQ FOR KIMBERLY A RUDY ESQ
3/29/2001 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BENJAMIN
G OCKER - RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
3/29/2001 ~ FOR LISTING CASE FOR ARGUMENT - PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR
SUMM3LRY JUDGMENT AGAINST DEFENDANT BY BENJAMIN G OCKER - BY
RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
4/09/2001 ~PE FOR WITHDRAWAL OF APPEARANCE GF ADDAMS & RUNDLE AND ENTER
THE APPEAR3~NCE OF THE LAW OFFICE OF MICHAEL J HANFT FOR THE
ADDITIONAL DEFT BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ
5/02/2001
5/02/2001
5/14/2001
11/09/2001
12/07/2001
12/12/2001
1/23/2002
3/11/2002
4/17/2002
5/06/2002
5/09/2002
3/31/2003
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT - BY LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ
CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN G OCKER FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT -
BY LORI LORI ADAMCIK KARISS ESQ FOR DEFT
PLAINTIFF'S RESPONSE TO CROSS-MOTION OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN C OCKER
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT BY RICHARD A SADLGCK ESQ
ORDER OF COURT - DATED 11/9/01 - IN RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUM~%RY JUDGMENT - FOR THE
REASONS SET FORTH IN THE OPINION FILED THIS DATE IN THE CASE OF
WALTER ARMSTRONG V BENJAMIN OCKER ET AL 00-3488 PLAINTIFF'S MOTION
FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT IS DENIED - THE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT OCKER IS GRANTED AND THE ACTION_I~ ~ISMISSED AS TO
HIM - BY EDWARD E GUIDO J - COPIES MAILED 11/9/0
BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ FOR PLFF
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA NOTICE OF APPEAL DOCKETING TO # 1967 MDA 2001
1/22/02 - TEH REASONS FOR OUR DECISION ARE FULLY SET FORTH IN THE
OPINION FILED IN COMPANION CASE DOCKETED AT 2000-3488 CIVIL_COPY
ATTACHED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED 1/23/02
ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION OF BENJAMIN G. OCKER
AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACION AS TO HIM. ACCORDINGLY, THE
APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED . - P WHITTAKER - CHIEF CLERK OF
SUPERIOR COURT OF PA MIDDLE DISTRICT
ORDER DATED 4/11/0~ FROM SUPERIOR COURT OF PA - THIS APPEAL HAS
BEEN TAKEN FROM 11/901 ORDER GRANTING THE SUMMARY JUDGMENT MOTION
OF BENJAMN G. OCKER AND DISMISSING THE UNDERLYING ACTION AS TO
HIM. A FINAL ODER IS AMY ORDER THAT DISPOSES OF ALL CLAIMS AND
ALL PARTIES. ACCORDINGLY THE APPEAL IS HEREBY QUASHED - PER
CURIAM - CERTIFIED BY PATRICIA A WHITTAKER CHIEF CLERK OF
SUUPERIOR COURT OF PA
OF JURISDICTION BY RICHARD A SADLOCK ATTY FOR PLFF
ORDER DATED 5/9/02 IN RE PETITION FOR PERMISSION TO APPEAL
PURSUANT TO PA.R.A...P.1312 BY THE COURT, EDWARD E GUIDO, J
COPIES MAILED 5/9/02
.....
BY AGREEMENT OF THE PARTIES ALL OF HTE ABOVE CAPTIONED MATTERS ~RE
CONSOLIDATED FOR TRIAL A NONJURY TRIAL, IS SCHEDULED IN THIS
MATTERON 5/23/03 AT 8:30 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES
MAILED
PYS510
2000-03372
Reference No..:
Case Tv]De ..... : COMPLAINT
Judgmeh% ..... % .00
Judge Assignea: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
5/23/2003 STIPULATION OF FACTS
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office Civil Case Inquiry
RYDER BONNIE (rs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
Page 3
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/00o0
0/00/0000
1967 MPA2001
- WE FIND THE DEFT KIMBERLY RI/DY AMD ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER
WERE NEGLIGENT AI~D THAT THE NEGLIGENCE OF EACH WAS A SUBSTANTIAL
FACTOR IN CAUSING THE INJURIES TO PLFFS WE APPORTION CAUSAL
NEGLIGENCE 25 PERCENT TO DEFT KIMBERLY RUDY 75 PERCENT TO DEFT
EVAN SPENCER - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
AND KArL E ROMINGER
5/23/2003 STIPULATION OF FACTS - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ RICHARD A SADLOCK
ESQ AND RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ AND KARL E ROMINGER ESQ
6/02/2003 POST TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITIONAL DEFT EVAN SPENCER TO MOLD THE
VERDICT - BY WILLIAM A ADDAMS ESQ FOR ~DITIONAL DEFT
SPENCER - BY RICI-I3~D A SkDLOCK ES~
TO SHOW CAUSE ~HY THE POST TRIAL MOTION TO kDDITIONAL DEFT EVAN
SPENCER SHOULD NOT BE TR/~TED - RULE 10 DAYS AFTER SERVICE - BY
THE COURT EDW.~.D E GUIDO G COPIES MAILED
ARGUMENT ON THE POST-TRIAL MOTION OF ADDITONAL DEFT EVg2'q' SPENCER
IS SCHEDULED FOR 7/7/03 AT 8;45 AM - BY THE COURT EDWARD E GUIDO J
COPIES MAILED
7/09/2003 ORDER OF COURT - DATED 7/7/03 - THE POST-TRIAL MOTIONS OF
ADDITONAL DEFT AND HAVING HEARING ARGUMENT THEREON IT IS ORDER AMD
DIRECTED THE PLFF IS AUTHORIZED TO ENTER JUDGMENT ON THE VERDICTS
- UPON ENTRY OF THE JUDMENTS THE PROTHONOTARY IS DIRECTED TO MARK
THE ACTION AGAINST TADDITIONAL DEFT EV~ SPENCER SETTLED
DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED IN ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOIN
TORTFEASOR RELEASE PREVIOUSLY EXECUTED - BY THE COURT EDWARD E
GUIDO J COPIES MAILED
7/14/2003 PRAECIPE FOR ENTRY OF JUDGMENT AND JUDGMENT ENTERED
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF DEFT BENJAMIN G OCKER AND
AGAINST PLFF BONNIE RYDER PURSUANT TO THE 11/9/01 ORDER OF THE HON
EDWARD E GUIDO
PLEASE ENTER JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLFF BONNIE RYDER AND AGAINST
THE ADDL DEFTS EVAN SPENCER AND KIMBERLY A RUDY AND ENTER JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF ADDL DEFT ROBERT SPENCER AGAINST PLFF BONNIE RYDER
PURSUANT TO THE 5/23/03 ORDER AND THE TERMS SET FORTH IN THE
7/7/03 ORDER OF THE HON.EDWARD E GUIDO AND MARK THE ACTION AGAINST
ADDL DEFT EVAN SPENCER SETLED DISCONTINUED AND RELEASED IN
ACCORDANCE WITH THE TERMS OF A JOINT TORTFESSOR PREVIOUSLY
EXECUTED.- RICHARD A SADLOCK ESQ - ATTY FOR PLFF"
7/14/2003 NOTICE MAILED TO DEFENDANTS
.............. LAST ENTRY ............
* Escrow Information *
Fees & Debits Beg Bal Pymts/Adj End Bal
COMPLAINT 35.00 35.00 .00
TAX ON CMPLT .50 .50 .00
SETTLEMENT 5.00 5.00 .00
JCP FEE 5.00 5.00 .00
7
PYS510
2000-03372
Reference No..:
Case TvDe ..... : COMPLAINT
Judgmeh% ..... ~ .00
Judge Assignea: GUIDO EDWARD E
Disposed Desc.:
............ Case Comments .............
APPEAL
JDMTJDEFAULT
JDMTJDEFAULT
JDMT/DEFAULT
SETTLEMENT
Cumberland County Prothonotary's Office
Civil Case Inquiry
RYDER BONNIE (rs) OCKER BENJAMIN G
Filed ........ :
Time ......... :
Execution Date
Jury Trial ....
Disposed Date.
Higher Crt 1.:
Higher Crt 2.:
30.00 30.00 .00
9.00 9.00 .00
9.00 9.00 .00
9.00 9.00 .00
5.00 5.00 .00
107.50 107.50 .00
Page 4
6/01/2000
3:35
0/00/00oo
0/00/0000
1967 MDA2001
* End of Case Information *
TRUE 6OPY FROM RECORO
T~'1~mon~, whereof I here unto set my
a~,d the ~a[ of ~ ~o~ ~ C~tsle~,
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Plaintiff
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3372 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PROOF OF SERVICE
I hereby certify that on this 17th day of July, 2003, a true and correct copy of the NOTICE
OF APPEAL was served upon the following persons and in the manner indicated below, which
service satisfies the requirements of PA.R.A.P. 121:
Service by First Class United States Mail, postage prepaid:
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
I.D. No. 55666
Marshall & Haddick, P.C.
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
(717) 731-4800
Counsel for Defendant Benjamin G. Ocker
William A. Addams, Esquire
I.D. No. 06265
Hanfi & Knight, P.C.
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Cmlisle, PA 17013
(717) 249-5373
Cmmsel for Additional Defendants
Evan Spencer and Robert Spencer
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
I.D. No. 81924
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
(717) 241-6070
Counsel for Additional Defendant Kimberly A. Rudy
214528A~RAS~vlLB
Personal Service:
The Honorable Edward E. Guido
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
Rick Pierce, Court Administrator
Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County
One Courthouse Square
Carlisle, PA 17013
NOTE:Appeal from Order following Argument 'before the Court En Banc -
no court report or transcript involved.
8ad~
1
4503 N. Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
239667.1 \RAS~vlLB
3~38 P.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number:
Page 1 of 3
July 23, 2003
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Bonnie Ryder, Appellant
V.
Benjamin G. Ocker
V.
Evan Spencer, Robert Spencer, and Kimberly A. Rudy
Initiating Document: Notice of Appeal
Case Status: Active
Case Processing Status: July 22, 2003
Journal Number:
Case Category: Civil
Awaiting Original Record
CaseType: Civil Action Law
Consolidated Docket Nos.: Related Docket Nos.:
1175 MDA 2003 Same Issue(s)
1176 MDA 2003 Same Issue(s)
SCHEDULED EVENT
Next Event Type: Docketing Statement Received Next Event Due Date: August 6, 2003
Next Event Type: Original Record Received Next Event Due Dat~
7/23/2003 3023
3:~8 P.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number:
Pa~e 2 of 3
July 23, 2003
1174 MDA 2003
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appellant
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
COUNSEL INFORMATION
Ryder, Bonnie
Appoint Counsel Status:
No
Appellant Attorney Information:
Attorney: Sadlock, Richard Alan
Bar No.: 47281 Law Firm: Angino & Rovner, P.C.
Address: Angino & Rovner, P.C.
4503 N~ Front Street
Harrisburg, PA 17110
Phone No.: (717)238-6791 Fax No.: (717)238-5610
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address: rsadlock@angino-rovner.com
Receive E-Maih No
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Ocker, Benjamin G.
Appoint Counsel Status:
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Haddick, Charles E.
Bar No.: 55666 Law Firm: Marshall, Smith & Haddick, P.C.
Address: Marshall & Haddick PC
20 S 36th Avenue
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Phone No.: (717)731-4800 Fax No.: (717)731-4803
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Maih No
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
Spencer, Evan & Robert
Appoint Counsel Status:
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Addams, William A.
Bar No.: 06265 Law Firm: Hanft & Knight, P.C.
Address: Hanff & Knight PC
19 Brookwood Ave Ste 106
Carlisle, PA 17013-9142
Fax No.: (717)249-0457
Phone No.: (717)249-5373
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Maih No
Appellee
Pro Se:
IFP Status:
7/23/2003
Rudy, Kimberly A.
Appoint Counsel Status:
3023
3:~8 P.M.
Appeal Docket Sheet
Docket Number: 1174 MDA 2003
Parle 3 of 3
July 23, 2003
Superior Court of Pennsylvania
Appellee Attorney Information:
Attorney: Rominger, Karl Ernst
Bar No.: 81924
Address: 155 S Hanover St
Carlisle, PA 17013
Phone No.: (717)241-6070
Receive Mail: Yes
E-Mail Address:
Receive E-Maih No
Law Firm:
Fax No,: (717)241-6878
FEE INFORMATION
I Paid
Fee Date Fee Name Fee Amt Amount Receipt Number
7/23/03 Notice of Appeal
TRIAL COURT/AGENCY INFORMATION
Court Below: Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas
County: Cumberland
Date of Order Appealed From: July 14, 2003
Date Documents Received: July 22, 2003
Order Type: Judgment Entered
Judge: Guido, Edward E.
Judge
Division: Civil
Judicial District: 9
Date Notice of Appeal Filed: July 18, 2003
OTN:
Lower Court Docket No.: 00-3372
Original Record Item
ORIGINAL RECORD CONTENTS
Filed Date
Content/Description
Date of Remand of Record:
BRIEFS
DOCKET ENTRIES
Filed Date Docket Entry/Document Name Party Type Filed By
July 22, 2003 Notice of Appeal Filed
Appellant Ryder, Bonnie
July 23, 2003 Docketing Statement Exited (Civil)
Middle District Filing Office
7/23/2003 3023
BONNIE RYDER,
Plaintiff
VS.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
VS.
EVANSPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, andKIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
AdditionalDe~ndants
IN THECOURT OF COMMON' PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3372 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
ORDER
AND NOW, May 6, 2003, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaimiff having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is directed to file of record,
within fourteen (14) days hereof and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of the
matters complained of on the appeal.
'~'Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Edward E. Guido, J.
· -,~harles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
For the Defendant
,,~arl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
t,/William Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
>
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS
OF CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
BONNIE RYDER,
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Plaintiff
Defendant
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY,
Additional Defendants
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
NO. 00-3372 Civil Term
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
PLAINTIFF'S CONCISE STATEMENT
OF MATTERS COMPLAINED OF ON APPEAL
Plaintiff, by her attorneys, Angino & Rovner, P.C. have filed a Notice of Appeal of the
Trial Court's grant of Defendant Benjamin Ocker's Motion for Summary Judgment. Pursuant to
your Court's Order, Plaintiff submits the following issues will be raised on appeal:
1. Did the Trial Court err in granting Defendant Benjamin Ocker's Motion for
Summary Judgment and by ruling that for dram shop/social host liability the fact that the
provider of alcohol was an adult was immaterial and that to be liable, the provider must be at
least 21 years old?
2. In a dram shop/social host case, should liability of the provider of alcohol be
premised on his legal status as an adult and not his age?
These issues have been preserved for appeal.
Date: August 7, 2003
ANGINO & ROVNER, P.C.
ire
Harrisburg, PA 17110
(717) 238-6791
Counsel for Plaintiff
264238.1 ~RAS~vlLB
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
I, Marcy L. Brymesser, an employee of the law firm of tLngino & Rovner, P.C., do hereby
certify that I am this day serving a tree and correct copy of PLAINTIFF'S CONCISE
STATEMENT on the following via postage prepaid, first class United States mail, requested
addressed as follows:
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Dickie, McCamey & Chilcote
20 South 36th Street
Camp Hill, PA 17011
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
155 South Hanover Street
Carlisle, PA 17013
William A. Addams, Esquire
Law Office of Michael J. Hanft
19 Brookwood Avenue, Suite 106
Carlisle, PA 17013
Date: August 7, 2003
Ma~k L. l~r~m~'ser~
264238. i LRAS~MLB
BONNIE RYDER,
Plaintiff
VS.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER,
Defendant
VS.
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT
SPENCER, and KIMBERLY A.
RUDY,
Additional Defendants
1N THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
00-3372 CIVIL
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
IN RE: APPEAL OF PLAINTIFF
AMENDED ORDER
AND NOW, August 8, 2003, in accordance with Rule 1925 of the Rules of Appellate
Procedure, the plaintiff having filed a notice of appeal, the appellant is directed to file of record,
within fourteen (14) days hereof and serve upon the undersigned a concise statement of the
matters complained of on the appeal.
Edward E. Guido, J.
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
For the Plaintiffs
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
For the Defendant
Karl Rominger, Esquire
For the Additional Defendant Rudy
William Addams, Esquire
For the Additional Defendants Spencer
/7
BONNIE RYDER
V.
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
V.
EVAN SPENCER,
ROBERT SPENCER, and
KIMBERLY A. RUDY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-3372 CIVIL TERM
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
IN RE: OPINION PURSUANT TO Pa. R.A.P. 1925
Guido, J., October ! O ,2003
Plaintiff is seeking review of our order granting Defendant Benjamin Ocker's
Motion for Summary Judgment. The reasons for our decision to grant the motion are
fully set forth in our opinion granting a similar motion in the companion case of
Armstrong v. Ocker, et al filed at 2000 Civil 3488. A copy of that opinion and order are
attached hereto.
DATE:
v/'~ichard A. Sadlock, Esquire
~'~arles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
~t~arl E. Rominger, Esquire
[/J~illiam A. Addams, Esquire
:sld
Edward E. Guido, J.
10-13-CF
WALTER ARMSTRONG, :
Plaintiff :
V. :
BENJAMIN OCKER, :
Defendant :
V. :
:
EVAN SPENCER AND :
ROBERT SPENCER, :
COPY
IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL
CIVIL ACTION - LAW
Additional Defendants
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF PLAINTIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J. OLER, GUIDO, JJ.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this ~ day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth
in the attached opinion, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judg~nent is DENIED. The
Motion for Summary Judgment of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is
dismissed as to him.
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Mr. Marlin Rudy
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
B:}~l~e Cou.~,~
Edward E. Guido, J.
William A. Addams, Esquire
WALTER ARMSTRONG,
Plaintiff
V.
BENJAMIN OCKER,
Defendant
V.
EVAN SPENCER and
: IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS OF
: CUMBERLAND COUNTY, PENNSYLVANIA
: NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
ROBERT SPENCER, -:
~'~ddk/onaJ Defendants
IN RE: MOTION FOR SUMMARY JU-DGMENT
OF PLAIN'IIFF AND CROSS MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
OF DEFENDANT BENJAMIN OCKER
BEFORE HOFFER, P.J., OLER, GUIDO, JJ.
OPINION AND ORDER OF COURT
The above plaintiff sustained serious injuries in a motor vehicle accident
involving a car driven by additional defendant Evan Spencer. 'Currently before us are the
motion for summary judgment filed by plaintiff and the cross raotion for summary
judgment filed by defendant Benjamin Ocker.
STANDARD OF REVIEW
Pennsylvania Rule of Civil Procedure i035.2 provides, in relevant part, as
follows:
Rule 1035.2 Motion
After the relevant pleadings are closed, but w/thin such time as not to
unreasonably delay trial, any party may move for summary jud~m:nent
in whole or in part as a matter of law
· NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
(1) ~vhenever there is no genuine issue of any material fact as to a
necessary element of the cause of action or defense which could be
established by additional discovery or expert report, or
(2) if, after the completion of disc0very relevant to the motion,
including the production of expert repo~ts, an adverse party who
will bear the burden of proof at trial has failed to produce evidence
of facts essential to the cause of action or defense which in a jury
trial would require the issues to be subraitted to a jury.
Pa. R.C.P. 1035.2. In determining whether to grant a motion for summary judgment we
must view the record in the light most favorable to the non-moving party. Ertel v. Patriot
News Co., 544 Pa. 93,674 A.2d 1038 (1966). Summary judgment may only be granted
in cases that are clear and free from doubt. J.H. ExRel. Hoffman v. Pellak, 764 A.2d 64
(Pa. Super. 2000).
FACTUAL BACKGROUND
The incident giving rise tO this cause of action was an automobile accident that
occurred on the evening of July 10, 1999. Additional defendant Evan Spencer
(hereinafter "Evan") lo~t control of the car he was driving and collided with the vehicle
occupied by the plaintiff.
Shortly before the accident, Evan had consumed alcohol at a party hosted by
defendant Ocker (hereinafter "Benjamin"). Both Evan and Benjamin; as well as several
other party guests, were under the age of twenty-one (21).~ The,, party featured a keg of
beer provided by the mother of one of the minor guests.
Gordon and Donna Ocker (hereinafter the "Ockers") are: the parents of Benjamin.2
Even though Benjamin was twenty (20) years old, he was still living with them.
Benjardn was twenty (20) years old at the time.
Although not a party to these proceedings, Benjamin's parents were sued by plainfiffth a separate action.
Evan Spencer was also joined as an additional defendant in that case.
ND. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
However, he was Zee to come and go as he pleased and they ~:reated him as an adult. He
was fully emancipated.
The Ockers were on vacation in South Carolina at the time of the party. They
were not aware that a keg party was planned in their absence. In point of fact, they
specifically prohibited any parties and forbade the consumption of alcohol in their home
while they were gone.
.DISCUSSION
PlaintifFs case against Benjamin is based upon the social host theory of liability.3
Since it is undisputed that Benjamin provided alcohol to additional defendant Evan, a
minor, plaintiff contends that he is entitled to summary judgment. Benjamin argues that
he is immune from liability under the social host doctrine because he was under twenty-
one (21) at the time he furnished the alcohol. Therefore, he contends that he is entitled to
surnmary judgment.
InKlein v. Raysinger, 504 Pa. 141,470 A.2d 507 (1983) the Supreme Court of
Pennsylvania recognized that "in the case of an ordinary able bodied man it is the
consumption of alcohol, rather than the furnishing of the alcohol, which is the proximate
cause of any subsequent occurrence." 470 A.2d 510. Consequently, it held that "there
can be no liability on the part ora social host who serves alcoholic beverages to his or her
adult guests." Id. at 511 (emphasis added). However, in a case decided the same day,
the Supreme Court held that social host liability could be imposed upon an adult who
~ "The social host doctrine is a general phrase used to designate a claim in negligence against a person (the
host) who provides alcoholic beverages to another (the guest), without remtmeration, where the guest then
sustains injuries, or causes injury to a th/rd person as ~ result of his intoxicatod condition. The theory is
that the host should be liable for the injuries as he is the person who furnished the intoxicating beverages."
Karpes v. Heller, 536 Pa. 551,640 A.2d '888, FN1 (1994).
· NO. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
provides alcohol to a person under twenty-one (21). Congini by ConMni v. Portersville
?alve Company, 504 Pa. 157, 70 A.2d 515 (1983).
Plaintiff contends that Benjamin's status as au emancipated adult should be
sufficient to impose liability under the Congini rationale. He points to the case of
Maxwell v. Keas, 433 Pa. Super. 70, 639 A.2d 1215 (I994) to support his position that, as
mx adult, benj mnin should be held responsible for the consequences of his actions.4
Plaintiff misinterprets the law of this Commonwealth with regard to the
imposition of social host liability. The focus of the inquiry is :not the status of the actors
as minor and adult. Rather, the inquiry is limited to the age of the actors. PlaintifFs
confusion is understandable given the frequent use of the terms "minor" and "adult" by
the various courts which have addressed the issue. However, lifter a careful review of
Congini, and the cases that follow, we are satisfied that the application of the social host
doctrine is based solely upon the ages of the parties.
Kapres v. Heller, 536 Pa. 551,640 A.2d 888 (1994) would appear to be
controlling. In that case the Supreme Court refused to apply tl:te social host doctrine to a
minor who furnished alcohol to another minor. Plaintiff argues that Kapres is not
applicable because the age of the defendant is not of record in lfiat case. We disagree.
Wkile the Supreme Court opinion in Kapres does not reveal the age of the
defendant, the Superior Court opinion does. The lower appellate clearly articulated the
issue to be decided as to whether "the holding in Congini v. Portersville Valve Co ....
wkich imposed social host liability on adults who furnish alcohol to persons under the
4 The Maxwell case formed the basis of a Motion for Summary Judgment filed by Benjamin's parents in a
companion case. Armstrong v. Ocker et al., 2029 Civil 2000. We granted tile motion, holding that the
parents had no duty to control the activities of their son, an emancipated adult·
NO. 2000q3488 CIVIL TERM
age of 21, should be extended to impose liability on persons between 18 and 21 years of
age who provide liquor to persons between 18 and 21 years of age." Kapres v. Heller,
612 A.2d 987, 989 (Pa. Super. 1992).
Furthermore, in a later case, the Superior Court specilT[cally held that "for the
purposes of imposing social host liability a person remains a minor until he reaches age
2i." Goldberg v. Delta Tau Delta, 613 A.2d 1250, 1252, (Pa. Super. 1992), appeal denied
534 Pa. 639, 626 A.2d 1158 (1993). Asthe Goldberg Court went on to state:
Although we find appellant's arguments persuasive, this Court is not
prepared to extend social host liability to persons under the age of 21.
The Congini case, which is the seminal case in Pennsylvania
establishing a cause of action by a minor against an adult social host,
specifically limited social host liability to one who is lawfully entitled
to possess and consume alcohol and furnishes it to one who is not so
entitled.
_/d. at 1253.
Also instructive is the case of Sl2erando v. Commonwealth Dept of
Transl~ortation, 630 A.2d 532 (Pa. Commonwealth 1993). In that case the
Commonwealth Court framed the issue as follows:
Whether the trial court erred in holding that a person under the age of
twenty-one is immune ~om social host liability when he has served
alcoholic beverages to a minor, thereby enabling the minor to become
intoxicated and injure a third person.
Id. at 533. The Sperando Court refused to follow the Superior Court decisions in Kapres
and Goldberg, supra. Rather, it held that "persons under the age of 21 may be held liable
as social hosts for the consequences of furnishing other persons under the age of twenty-
one with alcohol". Id. The Supreme Court reversed S]2erando :in a br/ef/2er 'curiam
opinion which cited its decision in Kapres, supra. See Sperando v. Commonwealth Dei2t.
of Transportation, 537 Pa. 352, 643 A.2d 1079 (1994).
· ND. 2000-3488 CIVIL TERM
Plaintiff's argument that an "adult" between the ages of 18 and 21 should be held
responsible for his actions is very persuasive. However, we cannot ignore the
unambiguous holdings in the above decisions; i,e. a person under the age of twenty-one is
immune from liability under the social host doctrine. Therefore, we are constrained to
deny plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and to grant that of defendant Ocker.
ORDER OF COURT
AND NOW, this 9TM day of NOVEMBER, 2001, for the reasons set forth in the
attached opinion, plaintiff's Motion for Summary Judgment is DENIED. The Motion for
Summary Judgment of defendant Ocker is GRANTED and the action is dismissed as to
him.
By the Court,
Richard A. Sadlock, Esquire
Charles E. Haddick, Jr., Esquire
Karl E. Rominger, Esquire
William A. Addams, Esquire
Marlin Rudy
:sld
/s/Edward E. Guido
Edward E. Guido, J.
3. A20042/04
NoN.PRECEDENT]At' DECISION
BONNY RIDER, Appellant
- SEE sUPER]OR COURT ],O.P.65.37
IN THE sUPERIOR CouRT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
BEN3AMIN G. OCKER
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
No. 1174 MDA 2003
Appeal from the 3udgment Entered 3uly 14, 2003
In the court of common pleas of cumberland county,
Civil, No. 00-3372
WALTER ARMSTRONG, ·
Appellant ·
V.
BEN3AMIN G. OCKER
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
3iN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1175 MDA 2003
Appeal from the ]udgment Entered ]uly 14, 2003
In the Court of common Pleas of cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3488
J. A20042/04
GARRY E. AND JOAN L. BOYD, SR.,
Appellant
V,
BENJAMIN G. OCKER
V,
EVAN SPENCER, ROBERT SPENCER
AND KIMBERLY A. RUBY
Appellees
IN THE SUPERIOR COURT OF
PENNSYLVANIA
No. 1176 MDA 2003
Appeal from the 3udgment Entered July 14, 2003
In the Court of Common Pleas of Cumberland County,
Civil, No. 00-3371
BEFORE:
MEMORANDUM:
One minor does
DEL SOLE, P.3., KELLY and CAVANAUGH, 33.*
FILED: August .26, 2004
not owe a duty to another minor
regarding the
furnishing or consumption of alcohol. Kapres v. I~eller, 640 A.2d 888, 891
(Pa. 1994). Appellants seek to challenge the continuing validity of this
limitation to the doctrine of social host liability. Since we are without
authority to grant the relief sought by appellant, we affirm.
The lower court granted a motion for summary judgment in favor of
appellee-Benjamin Ocker based upon his being under twenty-one years of
age at the time he had a party at his parents' house, provided beer to others
under the age of twenty-one, and did not stop one of them, Evan Spencer,
*This decision was reached prior to the death of Judge Cavanaugh.
2
1. A20042/04
from operating a motor vehicle while intoxicated. The lower court
determined that based upon the ages of Ocker and Spencer, i.e., both under
the age of twenty-one, Ocker was not liable to third persons as a social host
for acts committed by Spencer while he was under the influence of alcohol
provided by Ocker.
Our standard of review in an appeal from the granting of summary
judgment is whether the lower court committed an error of law or engaged
in a clear abuse of discretion. Gerrow v. Shincor Silicones, Znc., 756 A.2d
697, 700 (Pa. Super. 2000). We examine the record in the light most
favorable to the non-moving party and determine whether the moving party
has established that no genuine issue of material fact exists and that it is
entitled to judgment as a matter of law.
The facts, when viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving
party are that the four appellants were the driver, Garry E. Boyd, and three
passengers, Joan L. Boyd, Bonny Rider, and Walter Armstrong, in a motor
vehicle which was in a collision with the vehicle operated by appellee-Evan
Spencer. They each suffered severe injuries. At the time of the accident
Spencer was 17 years old. He had been to a party hosted by his friend,
appellee-Benjamin Ocker, who was twenty years old. Ocker provided a keg
of beer and served it to his guests, including Spencer.
Appellants argue that Ocker should be considered an adult, and,
therefore, subject to liability as a social host who furnished alcohol to a
3
]. A20042/04
minor. See Congini v. Portersville Valve Co.., 470 A.2d 515 (Pa. 1983).
However, this argument must be rejected in light of the Supreme Court's
holding in Kapres, supra, which declined to impose social host liability upon
an individual who was twenty years old for furnishing alcohol to another
person, also under twenty-one years old. Because both the person serving
alcohol and the person drinking it are considered under the law to be
incompetent to handle alcohol, the court held that the principle of social host
liability was inapplicable. /'d. at 891. See also Sperando v.
Commonwealth DOT, 643 A.2d 1079 (Pa. 1994).
We are obliged to follow the law as articulated by the Supreme Court
in Kapres and Sperando. It is the duty and obligation of the Superior Court
to follow the decisional law of the Supreme Court. Commonwealth v.
Shaffer, 734 A.2d 840, 845 n.6 (Pa. 1999). A fundamental precept of our
judicial system is that a lower court may not disregard the standards
articulated by a higher court. Commonwealth v. Randolph, 718 A.2d
1242, 1245 (Pa. 1998); Flannery v. Stump, 786 A.2d 255, 259 n.1 (Pa.
Super. 2001). As an intermediate appellate court, the Superior Court does
not enunciate new precepts of law or expand existing legal doctrines, since
that province is reserved to the Supreme Court. Mountain Properties, Znc.
v. Tyler Hill Realty Corp., 767 A.2d 1096, 1100 (Pa. Super. 2001).
Given the clarity of the Supreme Court's holdings in Kapres and
Sperando, we conclude that the lower court did not commit an error of law
4
J. A20042/04
or an abuse of discretion in granting summary judgment in favor of
appellees.
Judgment affirmed.
ent Ente~
Pr( tonotary ~
Date: ~,U~ ~ 6 ~0
5