Allen v. Jones
163 Cal. Rptr. 445, 104 Cal. App. 3d 207 (1980)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Damages are recoverable for mental distress without accompanying physical injury when a mortuary negligently mishandles a corpse. This type of negligence creates a special circumstance where genuine and serious mental distress is highly foreseeable, justifying an exception to the general rule requiring physical injury for such claims.
Facts:
- Plaintiff's brother, Ralph Allen, died on December 2, 1976, and Plaintiff was his nearest living relative.
- On approximately December 4, 1976, Plaintiff entered into an oral agreement with defendants, Miller Jones Valley Mortuary.
- The agreement stipulated that the mortuary would cremate Allen's body and ship the cremated remains to Rantoul, Illinois, for a fee of $516, which Plaintiff paid.
- Due to the mortuary's alleged negligence in packaging, the package containing the remains arrived in Illinois empty.
- The cremated remains of Plaintiff's brother were lost in transit.
- Upon learning that the remains were lost, Plaintiff suffered great nervous shock, mental anguish, and humiliation.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff sued Miller Jones Valley Mortuary and its individual partners in a state trial court.
- Plaintiff filed a second amended complaint alleging causes of action for negligent performance of a contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deceit.
- Defendants filed a demurrer to the second amended complaint, arguing it failed to state a valid claim for damages.
- The trial court sustained the demurrer on the ground that the complaint failed to plead 'recognized damages,' but granted plaintiff leave to amend.
- Plaintiff chose not to amend the complaint, and the trial court entered a judgment of dismissal.
- Plaintiff, as the appellant, appealed the judgment of dismissal to the intermediate court of appeal.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a cause of action for negligent mishandling of a corpse exist where the plaintiff suffers only mental distress without accompanying physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Tamura, J.
Yes. A cause of action for negligent mishandling of a corpse can be maintained for mental distress damages alone, without accompanying physical injury. The court reasoned that contracts with mortuaries are unique because they so affect the vital concerns of the individual that severe mental distress is a foreseeable result of a breach. Treating the claim as a tort for negligence, the court found that the nature of the wrongful conduct—mishandling human remains—provides a sufficient guarantee of the genuineness of the emotional distress claim, thus overcoming the traditional reluctance to award damages for mental suffering without physical manifestation. This aligns with the Restatement Second of Torts § 868 and public policy, which requires mortuaries to be held to a high standard of care due to the psychological devastation their mistakes can cause.
Concurring - Gardner, P. J.
Yes. While agreeing with the majority's conclusion, the concurrence argues that the decision is only a small step in the right direction and criticizes the underlying legal distinction between emotional distress accompanied by physical injury and that which stands alone. Judge Gardner describes this distinction as 'gossamer' and 'whimsical,' arguing that mental anguish is equally real regardless of physical manifestation. He urges the state Supreme Court to abolish this 'cockamamie distinction' entirely in all negligence actions, asserting that the fear of fictitious claims is illusory and that the law should modernize to recognize mental anguish as a valid injury in itself.
Analysis:
This decision carves out a significant exception to the general rule that typically requires physical manifestation of injury to recover damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress. By recognizing the unique, sensitive nature of mortuary services, the court establishes that in certain contexts where severe emotional harm is highly foreseeable, a plaintiff can recover for mental anguish alone. This case brings California law into alignment with the modern trend and the Restatement of Torts, providing a basis for recovery in cases where emotional harm is the primary, and often only, damage suffered. It signals a judicial willingness to look past the physical injury requirement when the circumstances of the negligence provide their own guarantee of a claim's authenticity.
Unlock the full brief for Allen v. Jones