April 25, 2011
Can family members who witness a casket that was improperly buried state a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress? Today, the Indiana Court of Appeals held that if they weren't present at the time of the burial and there was no damage to the body, the family members have no such claim in
York v. Fredrick, ___ N.E.2d ___ (Ind. Ct. App. 2011), Cause No. 42A01-1008-PL-420.
less..
In this case, a woman died and a funeral service was held. After the family left the cemetery, the woman was interred. However, it was discovered that the casket was too large to fit into the vault. Four people then pushed and applied pressure to the corners of the casket to force it into the vault. Once the casket was in the vault, the vault was bulging, and a seal was difficult to obtain. Boards and straps were used in an attempt to eliminate the bulge and get the vault sealed. Ultimately, the vault was interred without being completely sealed.
A couple of weeks later, one of the family members were notified by an anonymous caller that there had been a problem during the burial. The vault was then exhumed. Some of the family members were present at the exhumation. There was some conflicting testimony regarding whether there was dampness and dirt in the casket, but all witnesses agreed that the remains were not damaged.
The family brought a suit claiming, among other things, negligent infliction of emotional distress. The defendants moved for a dismissal under
Trial Rule 12(B)(6) and the trial court granted that motion. The family then appealed.
On appeal, the family compared their case to the situation described in
Blackwell v. Dykes Funeral Homes, Inc., 771 N.E.2d 692 (Ind. Ct. App. 2002). In that case, parents lost their son and had him cremated. Eleven years later, it was discovered that an urn containing his remains was not placed into the niche the parents had selected and that his remains had been lost. The Court in that case found that the defendants were not entitled to summary judgment on the parents' claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress.
The Court disagreed, holding that this case was distinguishable from
Blackwell.
That case involved a truly egregious situation where the funeral home permanently lost the remains of the son of the plaintiffs, who had been directly involved with the funeral arrangements, and which loss was not discovered for over eleven years. Here, none of the Yorks were involved with making the funeral arrangements for Johnson and had little, if any, contact with the Defendants. The upset experienced by the Yorks upon learning that Johnson's casket and vault had been damaged during the burial does not rise to the same level of egregiousness as the situation in Blackwell. As all of the Yorks testified, the remains were not lost and there was no damage to Johnson's remains. Further, as previously stated, they were not present during the burial, and they voluntarily exposed themselves to the exhumation by either being present when it occurred or by later viewing pictures and video taken when it occurred. We therefore conclude that the present case is distinguishable from Blackwell.
The Court's holding in this case is clear - a family cannot make a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress over irregularities in the burial process if those irregularities happened outside of their presence and did not damage the remains.
Lessons:
- A family cannot make a claim for negligent infliction of emotional distress over irregularities in the burial process if those irregularities happened outside of their presence and did not damage the remains.
Trackback Address :: http://www.indianalawupdate.com/trackback/192
- Tracked from technology DELETE science <a href="http://newto.org/ltscience">science</a> ios 5 <a href="http://lourolls.com/jcios-5">ios 5</a>
