Mortimer v. McCool
Pennsylvania Supreme Court
255 A.3d 261 (2001)

- Written by Sean Carroll, JD
Facts
Ryan Mortimer (plaintiff) was seriously injured when her car was struck by a drunk driver. The driver was coming from the Famous Mexican Restaurant (the restaurant), where he had been served alcohol. The restaurant had no liquor-liability insurance. The restaurant used a liquor license owned by 340 Associates, LLC (defendant). 340 Associates was owned by Michael Andrew McCool (Andy) and his brother Raymond Christian McCool (Chris) (defendants). The restaurant was located in a large commercial building owned by McCool Properties, LLC (defendant). Andy, Chris, and their father, Raymond McCool (Raymond) (defendant) were the sole members of McCool Properties, each owning one third of the company. Mortimer obtained a $6.8 million judgment in a dram-shop action against 340 Associates and others. Under Pennsylvania law, 340 Associates as the liquor licensee was jointly and severally liable for the judgment. However, 340 Associates had no real assets other than the license. Accordingly, Mortimer sued 340 Associates, McCool Properties, Chris, Andy, and the estate of Raymond, who had died, seeking to pierce the corporate veil of 340 Associates and hold the other parties liable for the judgment. The trial court ruled against Mortimer. Mortimer appealed, relying on the theory of enterprise liability.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Wecht, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 815,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.