Pennsylvania Consolidated Statutes

42 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 8307 (2026)

Action by parent, guardian or other custodian for damages in the sale or transfer of controlled substances to a child.

✓ current as of May 2026

Coverage note: this corpus holds the consolidated Pa.C.S. titles only. Unconsolidated P.S. statutes (UTPCPL 73 P.S. § 201-1, Liquor Code, wage payment laws) are not included; a miss here does not mean the statute does not exist. Check palegis.us.

Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section PA-LEGpalegis.us JustiaTitle on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

§ 8307. Action by parent, guardian or other custodian for damages in the sale or transfer of controlled substances to a child.

(a) Cause of action established.--The parent, guardian or other custodian of any child under 18 years of age to whom a controlled substance or designer drug, as defined under the act of April 14, 1972 (P.L.233, No.64), known as The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act, is sold or transferred shall have a cause of action against the person who sold or transferred the controlled substance or the designer drug to the child, and recovery may be sought by the child's parent, guardian or other custodian for damages caused by the sale or transfer of the controlled substance or designer drug.

(b) Damages.--Damages shall include the cost for treatment and rehabilitation relating to or resulting from the child's drug dependency or use. The court may order that some or all of this award be placed in a fund for the purpose of providing for the treatment and rehabilitation of the child's drug dependency or use, including past treatment and rehabilitation.

(c) Attorney fees.--Reasonable attorney fees shall be awarded to a party that brings suit and prevails under this cause of action.

(d) Exception.--This section shall not apply to a practitioner who sells or transfers a controlled substance listed in The Controlled Substance, Drug, Device and Cosmetic Act to a child pursuant to a valid prescription.

(Dec. 22, 1989, P.L.722, No.96, eff. 60 days)

1989 Amendment. Act 96 added section 8307.

Notes of Decisions

Cited in 4 cases, 1977–1978 · leading case: Garfield v. Homowack Lodge, Inc., 378 A.2d 351 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977).

Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment

Garfield v. Homowack Lodge, Inc., 378 A.2d 351 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1977). · cites it 2× “15, 1972, supra; 42 Pa.C.S. § 8307. [4] An order ruling on a question of jurisdiction is appealable.”

Rusack v. Harsha, 470 F. Supp. 285 (M.D. Penn. 1978). “The applicable Pennsylvania statute at that time was the old Pennsylvania long arm statute, specifically 42 Pa.Cons.Stat. § 8307. It appears that the requirements of that section have been met, see document No.”

Laffey v. Lehigh Valley Dairy Coop., 390 A.2d 238 (Pa. Super. Ct. 1978). “271, § 8307, 42 Pa.C.S. § 8307 (Supp. 1977-78). 2 . § 8309(c) provides: Notwithstanding any other provision of this section, for the purposes of determining jurisdiction of courts within this Commonwealth, inspecting, appraising and acquiring real estate and mortgages, and other…”

City of Philadelphia v. Bullion, 368 A.2d 1375 (Pa. Commw. Ct. 1977). “8 Section 8307 of the Act, 42 Pa. C.S. §8307 provides for service “upon the Department of State,- by sending by registered or certified mail, postage prepaid, a true and attested copy of such process, with the fee required by law, and by sending to the defendant, by registered…”

Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.