Clay v. Schriver Allison Courtley Co.
118 N.E.3d 1027, 2018-Ohio-3371 (2018)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
To sustain a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), the defendant's conduct must be so extreme and outrageous as to be 'beyond all possible bounds of decency' and 'utterly intolerable in a civilized community.' Conduct that is merely rude, unprofessional, or insensitive, even in the context of funeral services, does not meet this high threshold.
Facts:
- After Rose White died, her daughters, including Beverly Ann Clay, Lilly May Curtis, and Mary Jane Patton, contracted with Shriver funeral home for her funeral services.
- Shriver engaged FHS to transport White's body from Cleveland to Youngstown.
- The FHS driver, Brian Lozano, drove at speeds exceeding 85 miles per hour, weaving through heavy, rainy traffic while White's daughters attempted to follow him.
- Upon arriving at Shriver, Lozano argued with the daughters about embalming and refused them entry to view their mother's body.
- A Shriver employee, Kimberly Romanchuk, was belligerent while rushing the family through funeral arrangements, complaining that her own daughter was home alone.
- At the viewing, White's body was poorly prepared: her hair was messy with clippings left in the casket, stitching in her mouth was visible, she was not wearing a bra under her gown, and her body was positioned awkwardly.
- During the funeral eulogy, Romanchuk began removing cards from floral arrangements and handed the funeral bill to Mary Jane Patton.
- The funeral director, David Courtley, was overheard cursing, slammed the casket lid shut, dismissed mourners without a final procession, and abandoned the funeral procession to the cemetery before the graveside service concluded.
Procedural Posture:
- Appellants (Estate of Clay, et al.) filed a complaint against FHS, Shriver, and Brian Lozano in the common pleas court (trial court).
- After the trial court granted summary judgment to some defendants, Appellants voluntarily dismissed and then re-filed their complaint in the same trial court.
- Defendants FHS and Shriver filed motions for summary judgment on the re-filed complaint.
- The trial court granted summary judgment in favor of both FHS and Shriver, dismissing all of Appellants' claims.
- Appellants appealed the trial court's grant of summary judgment to the intermediate court of appeals.
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 the conduct of funeral service providers, which included reckless transportation of a decedent's body, belligerent and disrespectful behavior by staff during arrangements and services, and improper presentation of the body for viewing, constitute 'extreme and outrageous' conduct sufficient to support a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress?
Opinions:
Majority - Waite, J.
No. The conduct of the funeral service providers, while grossly unprofessional and insensitive, does not rise to the level of 'extreme and outrageous' required for a claim of intentional infliction of emotional distress. To be actionable, conduct must be utterly intolerable in a civilized community, a standard not met here. The court reasoned that while the employees' behavior was incredibly rude, thoughtless, and callous, it did not go beyond all possible bounds of decency. Furthermore, the Appellants failed to establish the element of causation, as they could not distinguish the emotional distress caused by each defendant's specific actions from the distress caused by the cumulative effect of all events or other life stressors. The court did, however, reverse the summary judgment on the breach of contract claim against Shriver, holding it was not barred by the tort statute of limitations and that genuine issues of fact remained for trial.
Analysis:
This case reinforces the exceptionally high evidentiary burden for plaintiffs in intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED) claims in Ohio. It demonstrates that even a series of morally reprehensible and unprofessional acts in a highly sensitive context like funeral services may not be legally actionable as IIED. The decision emphasizes that a plaintiff cannot simply aggregate the wrongful acts of multiple parties into a 'continuum' of bad events but must prove that each defendant's specific conduct was independently 'extreme and outrageous' and the direct cause of 'serious' emotional distress. This ruling solidifies the tort's narrow application to only the most atrocious conduct, while distinguishing it from a breach of contract claim where emotional distress damages may be recoverable under a lower standard for contracts of a personal and sensitive nature.
