Jaynes v. Strong-Thorne Mortuary, Inc.
954 P.2d 45, 124 N.M. 613, 1998 NMSC 004 (1997)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
New Mexico law holds that while family members can be third-party beneficiaries to a funeral contract, liability for damages beyond direct contractual remedies, such as for emotional distress or prima facie tort, requires a showing of extreme and outrageous conduct, severe distress that objectively prevents coping, contemporaneous sensory perception of the negligent act (for NIED bystander liability), or malicious intent to cause injury.
Facts:
- In February 1994, Kiro Arthur Jaynes died, and his brother, William Jaynes, and son, Arthur Jaynes, arranged his burial with Strong-Thorne Mortuary at Fairview Memorial Gardens in the family plot.
- William Jaynes specifically inquired of David C. Merrill, a managerial employee of Strong-Thorne, whether Kiro's grave could be dug without disturbing any other family graves nearby, and Merrill represented that no other graves would be disturbed.
- In reliance on Merrill's representation, William Jaynes allowed the family plot to be used for Kiro's burial, and Arthur Jaynes signed the contract and paid for the funeral.
- During the grave digging for Kiro, a backhoe operated by Strong-Thorne employees broke into the adjacent thirty-year-old grave of Vondaine Jaynes, William's mother, exposing her remains.
- Strong-Thorne did not notify the Jaynes family of the damage to Vondaine's grave and left both the newly dug grave and the disturbed portion of Vondaine's grave exposed overnight.
- The following evening, Arthur Jaynes discovered the uncovered gravesite and the damage to Vondaine's grave, notifying William, who was too upset to enter the cemetery himself.
- Despite inspecting the site, the Strong-Thorne manager again failed to cover the grave, and the site was further disturbed overnight, with broken pieces of the liner scattered and several beer cans strewn about.
- Temporary repairs were made to Vondaine's concrete liner without family consultation, and Kiro's burial proceeded as planned, with family members observing debris from Vondaine's grave near the site.
Procedural Posture:
- William Jaynes, Robert Jaynes, Linda Gray, and Carolyn Salter (children of Vondaine Jaynes) sued Strong-Thorne Mortuary in district court, alleging breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort.
- Strong-Thorne Mortuary moved for summary judgment on all claims.
- The district court granted Strong-Thorne's motion for summary judgment.
- Appellants (Vondaine's children) moved the district court to reconsider the grant of summary judgment, noting that the severity of emotional distress had not been briefed.
- The district court refused to vacate the summary judgment.
- Appellants appealed the district court's decision to the New Mexico Supreme Court.
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 funeral home's negligent disturbance of a grave and subsequent failure to notify the family or secure the site give rise to claims for breach of contract damages, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or prima facie tort for the deceased's surviving children in New Mexico?
Opinions:
Majority - Franchini, Chief Justice
No, a funeral home's negligent disturbance of a grave and subsequent failure to notify the family or secure the site does not give rise to claims for breach of contract damages, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, or prima facie tort under New Mexico law in this case. The Court affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment on all claims. Regarding the breach of contract claim, the Court found no contract formed between William Jaynes and Strong-Thorne due to a lack of consideration under the pre-existing duty rule, as Strong-Thorne already had a duty to care for the plot. While Arthur Jaynes had a contract with Strong-Thorne, and Vondaine’s children were considered third-party beneficiaries (citing Flores v. Baca), the Court held that there were no compensable damages arising from the breach of this specific contract for the opening and closing of Kiro’s grave, as Vondaine’s coffin had been replaced, her remains reinterred, and Arthur reimbursed for Kiro’s burial costs. For intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), the Court concluded that Strong-Thorne’s conduct was not “extreme and outrageous” as required, defining such conduct as that which “goes beyond bounds of common decency and is atrocious and intolerable to the ordinary person.” Furthermore, the Appellants failed to allege “severe” emotional distress, which must be such that “a reasonable person, normally constituted, would be unable to cope adequately with the mental distress engendered by the circumstances” (citing Folz v. State). Concerning negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), New Mexico only recognizes this cause of action for bystander liability (citing Flores v. Baca). The Court found that Appellants did not have a “contemporaneous sensory perception” of the events, distinguishing their experience from the direct, immediate observation required in Acosta v. Castle Constr. While ordinary negligence claims could arise from a breach of funeral service contracts if severe mental distress is alleged (per Flores), the Appellants in this case failed to allege the necessary severe mental distress. The Court declined to adopt a broader tort for a funeral director's negligent infliction of emotional distress. Finally, for prima facie tort, the Court determined that the “intent to cause injury” requirement (from Schmitz v. Smentowski) was not met. While intent does not need to be solely malicious, the Court found no malicious intent to injure the Appellants, concluding Strong-Thorne’s conduct did not rise to the required level.
Concurring - Baca, J.
Justice Baca concurred with the majority opinion, indicating agreement with the reasoning and conclusion without offering additional separate grounds for the decision.
Concurring - Serna, J.
Justice Serna concurred with the majority opinion, indicating agreement with the reasoning and conclusion without offering additional separate grounds for the decision.
Analysis:
This case underscores the strict standards for emotional distress claims in New Mexico, particularly the narrow scope of negligent infliction of emotional distress (limited to bystander liability) and the high bar for "extreme and outrageous" conduct in intentional infliction. It clarifies that while funeral contracts implicitly benefit family members as third-party beneficiaries, a breach must result in actual compensable damages that are not merely subjective emotional upset. The decision highlights the difficulty in recovering for purely emotional harm resulting from negligence in funeral services unless the distress is objectively severe and directly observed, or the conduct demonstrates malicious intent.
