Lexplug logoLexplug

Renihan v. Wright

Indiana Supreme Court
25 N.E. 822, 125 Ind. 536, 9 L.R.A. 514 (1890)
ELI5:

Rule of Law:

The next of kin, not the executor or administrator, have a quasi-property right to the custody of a deceased relative's body for the purpose of burial. A party who breaches a contract for the care and keeping of a corpse can be held liable for damages for the mental anguish foreseeably caused to the next of kin by that breach.


Facts:

  • Appellees, a husband and wife, experienced the death of their daughter.
  • On December 10, 1884, they hired appellants, who were undertakers, to take charge of and safely keep their daughter's body in a secure vault until burial.
  • Appellees compensated the appellants for this service.
  • Appellants failed to safely keep the remains and instead allowed the body to be taken and buried elsewhere.
  • When appellees asked for information, appellants refused to disclose the body's location beyond stating, 'Your child is in Ohio.'

Procedural Posture:

  • The appellees (parents) filed a complaint against the appellants (undertakers) in an Indiana trial court.
  • The appellants filed a demurrer to the complaint, which the trial court overruled.
  • The appellants filed an answer, and the court sustained the appellees' demurrer to the second paragraph of that answer.
  • A jury trial resulted in a verdict for the appellees.
  • The trial court entered judgment on the verdict after denying the appellants' motion for a new trial.
  • The appellants appealed the judgment to the Supreme Court of Indiana.

Locked

Premium Content

Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief

You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture

Issue:

Do the next of kin have a legal right to the custody of a deceased relative's body, and can they recover damages for mental anguish resulting from a breach of a contract for the body's care?


Opinions:

Majority - Coffey, J.

Yes. The next of kin have a legal right to the custody of a deceased relative's body, and they can recover damages for mental anguish resulting from a breach of a contract for the body's care. The court rejected the English ecclesiastical doctrine that gives the church control over dead bodies, finding it inapplicable in the United States where secular courts must enforce such rights. Drawing from American jurisprudence, the court affirmed that the right to bury a corpse and preserve its remains is a legal right belonging exclusively to the next of kin. Furthermore, damages for mental anguish are recoverable for the breach of a contract of this nature. The undertakers knew that their failure to perform the contract would result in injury to the parents' feelings, and thus they are presumed to have contracted with reference to paying damages of that character.



Analysis:

This case is significant for formally recognizing a quasi-property right of the next of kin in the body of the deceased in Indiana, diverging from English common law precedents. It establishes that this right is a legal one that secular courts will protect. Moreover, the decision expands the availability of damages for mental anguish in breach of contract cases, applying it to personal service contracts where emotional distress is a foreseeable consequence of the breach. This precedent set the foundation for future litigation involving the mishandling of human remains and similar emotionally sensitive agreements.

🤖 Gunnerbot:
Query Renihan v. Wright (1890) directly. You can ask questions about any aspect of the case. If it's in the case, Gunnerbot will know.
Locked
Subscribe to Lexplug to chat with the Gunnerbot about this case.

Unlock the full brief for Renihan v. Wright