AUSTIN – Mental anguish damages might be available in a case alleging negligent mishandling of a corpse, the Texas Supreme Court ruled Friday, sending a recently argued case back to a Brown County court for trial.
The court in SCI Texas Funeral Services Inc. v. Cody Nelson upheld a ruling by the 11th Court of Appeals in Eastland that Nelson, Lobban’s only adult child, had common law and statutory rights as next of kin to determine the disposition of his mother’s remains.
After 52-year-old Sharlene Lobban died unexpectedly in October 2007, SCI tried to locate her only adult son Nelson, who was living in Tucson. The funeral home could not find Nelson and acceded to the wishes of Lobban’s siblings and her minor son that the decedent had wanted her body to be cremated.
The funeral home obtained approval from a justice of the peace to waive a Texas law requiring 48 hours before a body can be cremated so that Lobban’s family could hold a memorial service and scatter her ashes. A few days later Nelson logged onto a social media account at a library and found a message from his aunt about his mother’s death.
Nelson claims mental anguish damages for having been denied the opportunity to pay his last respects to his mother. SCI argued that Nelson could not recover damages without a contractual relationship.
While reiterating that Texas does not recognize an independent cause of action for negligent infliction of mental anguish, the courts said such damages might be available when they are caused by a defendant’s breach of a legal duty, such as mishandling of a corpse.
Chief Justice Nathan Hecht wrote the opinion for a unanimous court. In ruling for Nelson, the court disapproved of a 2001 ruling from the 14th Court of Appeals in Houston. In that case, Lions Eye Bank v. Perry, the court of appeals overturned a jury’s award of mental anguish damages for an eye bank’s removal of a deceased person’s eyes against the parents’ wishes. The court of appeals said that in order to recover for mental anguish, a plaintiff must establish a “special relationship” requiring a contract between the parties.
Although the Supreme Court declined to review the lower court ruling in the eye bank case, Hecht said the test set forward by the Houston court fails to encompass all relationships that could create liability for mental anguish damages.
“The relationship between a person disposing of a decedent’s remains and the next of kin is special, even without a contract,” Hecht said.
Nelson’s lawyer, Kirk Pittard, called the ruling “logical and consistent with human relations.”
“The Texas Supreme Court recognized that, under Texas law, special relationships giving rise to duties not to negligently inflict mental anguish on others are not limited to just contractual relationships,” said Pittard of Kelly, Durham & Pittard in Dallas.
Pittard had argued to the high court in January that if the Texas law that gave Nelson priority to dispose of his mother’s remains can be ignored, “then it’s a race down to the funeral home to see who can sign the first contract about what to do with this body.”
Thompson & Knight partner Richard B. Phillips Jr. represents SCI.