## Facts

- Eric B. Herr, a West Chester University student, died overnight on January 17, 1984; autopsy showed acute ethanol poisoning with a blood-alcohol content of 0.64%.
- On January 16, 1984 (the day before his 21st birthday), Eric and three roommates pooled money to buy several cases of beer; they began drinking in their apartment.
- Later, Eric went to another gathering with two defendants and consumed more beer.
- Defendant Orolyn obtained a nearly full bottle of Jack Daniels and gave it to Eric as a birthday gift.
- Back at Eric’s apartment, Eric consumed most of the whiskey himself, apparently in two sustained gulps; it was undisputed the first gulp occurred before midnight.
- Eric’s parents (and his estate) alleged the defendants furnished alcohol to a legal minor, encouraged him to drink, and failed to render aid when his condition became serious.

## Issues

1. For statutes prohibiting furnishing alcohol to “minors,” does a person attain age 21 on the day before the birthday (common-law age-attainment rule) or on the actual birthday?
2. If Eric was a minor when alcohol was furnished, can social hosts face negligence-per-se liability for furnishing alcohol to a minor under Pennsylvania law?
3. Do the alleged facts state an intentional tort of battery where friends provided alcohol that Eric voluntarily consumed?

## Decision

- The Superior Court rejected applying the common-law “day-before” age-attainment rule to the alcohol-control statutes; for this purpose, a person remains a minor until the actual anniversary of birth.
- Because material furnishing and consumption occurred before midnight, Eric was still a minor at the relevant time; summary judgment for defendants on negligence was reversed and the case was remanded.
- Summary judgment for defendants on the battery claim was affirmed.

## Legal Principles

- In interpreting statutes aimed at preventing furnishing alcohol to minors, “minor” status turns on actual chronological age through the birthday, not the common-law age-attainment fiction.
- Furnishing alcohol to a minor in violation of alcohol-control statutes may support negligence per se against social hosts; once statutory duty and violation are shown, causation and damages are generally for the factfinder.
- Providing alcohol that an individual voluntarily consumes, without nonconsensual contact or force, does not establish civil battery.

## Conclusion

The court held that, for purposes of Pennsylvania’s alcohol statutes and related social-host negligence-per-se claims, a person remains a minor until the actual birthday; it reinstated the negligence claim while leaving the battery theory dismissed because the decedent voluntarily drank the alcohol provided.


Herr v. Booten, 580 A.2d 1115 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1990)