Mark Congini Case Brief Essay

On December 22, 1978, the plaintiff’s, Mark Congini’s parents, son was injured in a car collision while he was driving home intoxicated. Mark Congini was driving home from his employee, Portersville Valve Company, Christmas party where Congini was served alcoholic beverages at the party leading him to the point of intoxication. When he requested for his keys, though the company’s agent who Mark requested the keys from knew he was intoxicated, they were given to him with full knowledge that Mark had the intent to drive home from the party. Congini was eighteen years of age at this time and his injuries consisted of numerous fractures in addition to brain damage leaving him entirely disabled for the remainder of his life. The defendant in this

This issue was similar to one found in the case, Klein v. Raysinger, where it was questioned how liable one can be held for injuries to one of their guests when the social host is the provider of alcohol. It was concluded that a social host cannot be held liable when a one provides or serves alcohol to its guests. This case was different from Congini v. Portersville Valve Co., because in the Cognini case the injuries were sustained by the person who consumed the alcohol rather than a third party. Also, it differed because Mark Cognini was a minor at the time of this accident. Reliance on the common law rule that “in the case of an ordinary able bodied man, it is the consumption of alcohol rather than the furnishing thereof, that is the proximate cause of any subsequent damage.” This is important; however, it could not fully answer this case, because a minor is not considered to be an able bodied man. They are viewed as incompetent to handle alcohol. As we move on, it was decided that an eighteen year old is able to state a cause of action against an adult host who has provided alcohol, yet a defendant may simultaneously say that due to him being eighteen, he has committed contributory negligence since adults can be held liable for any offenses committed. The appellants raised a point claiming that defendant’s had a breached their duty as a landowner, but this was disregarded by the Appellate Court as it was not properly brought up through the pleadings. In deciding this case, the court also looked at Section 341 of the Restatement of Torts. This section is titled “Activities Dangerous to Licensees,” and it states that people who own land may be held liable for others physical harm only if the person is unable to foresee or realize the danger associated with the action or if they do not know the risk involved with their activities. It