ILNews

COA rules botched burial does not entitle relatives to award

Back to TopCommentsE-mailPrintBookmark and Share

The Indiana Court of Appeals has ruled that relatives of a woman whose burial went awry are not entitled to damages.

On August 16, 2007, Doris Johnson’s family had left her grave site before interment. When the casket was determined to be too large to fit in the burial vault, funeral director Donald Fredrick, along with Donald Gilmore, Robert Evans, and Michael Carnahan, attempted to force the vault closed. It was interred without being completely sealed.

On August 27, Johnson’s family — the Yorks — received an anonymous call about the problems with the burial. Family members called the Duesterberg-Fredrick funeral home, requesting that the casket and vault be exhumed.

The Yorks were not responsible for the cost of the August 30 exhumation, replacement casket, and replacement vault.

Tina Baum, Johnson’s granddaughter, and two other relatives, Summer Noland and Shawn York, were present at exhumation. All three noticed some damage to either the vault or casket, but no damage to the remains. Photographs and video taken at the exhumation were played during a family reunion and viewed by the Yorks and other relatives. For Steven and Sharon York, this was their first opportunity to view the vault, casket, and remains. They did not notice any damage to the remains.

The Yorks all contend to have suffered emotional distress as a result of this incident, but none sought any medical or other professional treatment.

On July, 17, 2008, the Yorks filed an amended complaint against Fredrick; the funeral home; Edwardsport Town Cemetery Association; Sexton Wilbert Corp., twhich delivered the vault; and those who put Johnson’s remains in the vault, alleging negligence, gross negligence, negligent infliction of emotional distress, intentional infliction of emotional distress. They also alleged Fredrick and the funeral home committed a breach of fiduciary duty.

On December 29, 2008, the trial court issued an order granting the partial motion to dismiss of all the defendants as to the claims of negligent infliction of emotional distress pursuant to Indiana Trial Rule 12(B)(6). A motion for summary judgment for the remaining allegations was filed and joined by all of the Defendants.

The Yorks filed a response to this motion, and Evans and Sexton Wilbert filed a reply brief to this response and a supplement to the facts. The Yorks filed a motion to strike both filings by Evans and Sexton Wilbert, which was denied by the trial court. On July 23, 2010, the trial court issued an order granting summary judgment in favor of the defendants on all of the remaining allegations.

On appeal in Sharon S. York, et al. v. Donald Fredrick, et al., No. 42A01-1008-PL-420, the Yorks cited Indiana’s bystander rule in support of their claim for relief for negligent inflection of emotional distress. But the COA cited Groves v. Taylor, 729 N.E.2d 569 (Ind. 2000), which states that a bystander must either witness or come upon a scene soon after the death or severe injury of a loved one caused by the defendant’s negligent conduct. The family, the COA stated, was not present at the time of the interment.

Again citing Groves, the COA said that the “scene” must be essentially as it was at the time of the incident, and the claimant must not have been informed of the incident before coming upon the scene. The family had been informed of the burial problems and had voluntarily attended the exhumation.

The appellate court also affirmed summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the remaining claims and held the Yorks wavied their claim regarding the denial of their motion to strike.
 

ADVERTISEMENT

Post a comment to this story

COMMENTS POLICY
We reserve the right to remove any post that we feel is obscene, profane, vulgar, racist, sexually explicit, abusive, or hateful.
 
You are legally responsible for what you post and your anonymity is not guaranteed.
 
Posts that insult, defame, threaten, harass or abuse other readers or people mentioned in Indiana Lawyer editorial content are also subject to removal. Please respect the privacy of individuals and refrain from posting personal information.
 
No solicitations, spamming or advertisements are allowed. Readers may post links to other informational websites that are relevant to the topic at hand, but please do not link to objectionable material.
 
We may remove messages that are unrelated to the topic, encourage illegal activity, use all capital letters or are unreadable.
 

Messages that are flagged by readers as objectionable will be reviewed and may or may not be removed. Please do not flag a post simply because you disagree with it.

Sponsored by
ADVERTISEMENT
Subscribe to Indiana Lawyer
  1. Today, I want to use this opportunity to tell everyone about Dr agbuza of agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com, on how he help me reunited with my husband after 2 months of divorce.My husband divorce me because he saw another woman in his office and he said to me that he is no longer in love with me anymore and decide to divorce me.I seek help from the Net and i saw good talk about Dr agbuza and i contact him and explain my problem to him and he cast a spell for me which i use to get my husband back within 2 days.am totally happy because there is no reparations and side-effect. If you need his help Email him at agbuzaodera(at)gmail. com

  2. The practitioners and judges who hail E-filing as the Saviour of the West need to contain their respective excitements. E-filing is federal court requires the practitioner to cram his motion practice into pigeonholes created by IT people. Compound motions or those seeking alternative relief are effectively barred, unless the practitioner wants to receive a tart note from some functionary admonishing about the "problem". E-filing is just another method by which courts and judges transfer their burden to practitioners, who are the really the only powerless components of the system. Of COURSE it is easier for the court to require all of its imput to conform to certain formats, but this imposition does NOT improve the quality of the practice of law and does NOT improve the ability of the practitioner to advocate for his client or to fashion pleadings that exactly conform to his client's best interests. And we should be very wary of the disingenuous pablum about the costs. The courts will find a way to stick it to the practitioner. Lake County is a VERY good example of this rapaciousness. Any one who does not believe this is invited to review the various special fees that system imposes upon practitioners- as practitioners- and upon each case ON TOP of the court costs normal in every case manually filed. Jurisprudence according to Aldous Huxley.

  3. Any attorneys who practice in federal court should be able to say the same as I can ... efiling is great. I have been doing it in fed court since it started way back. Pacer has its drawbacks, but the ability to hit an e-docket and pull up anything and everything onscreen is a huge plus for a litigator, eps the sole practitioner, who lacks a filing clerk and the paralegal support of large firms. Were I an Indiana attorney I would welcome this great step forward.

  4. Can we get full disclosure on lobbyist's payments to legislatures such as Mr Buck? AS long as there are idiots that are disrespectful of neighbors and intent on shooting fireworks every night, some kind of regulations are needed.

  5. I am the mother of the child in this case. My silence on the matter was due to the fact that I filed, both in Illinois and Indiana, child support cases. I even filed supporting documentation with the Indiana family law court. Not sure whether this information was provided to the court of appeals or not. Wish the case was done before moving to Indiana, because no matter what, there is NO WAY the state of Illinois would have allowed an appeal on a child support case!

ADVERTISEMENT