Day on Torts

Where plaintiff alleged that her son’s body was buried in the wrong place within a cemetery and brought several claims, including negligent mishandling of a dead human body, against defendant funeral home, summary judgment for the funeral home was affirmed based on the finding that the funeral home “had no common law duty to direct or supervise the burial and disposition” of the body and that the funeral home “conformed to the reasonable person standard of care under all of the circumstances.”

In Mathes v. N.J. Ford and Sons Funeral Home, Inc., No. W2021-00368-COA-R3-CV, 2023 WL 117729 (Tenn. Ct. App. Jan. 6, 2023), plaintiff asserted claims for mishandling of her dead son’s body. Plaintiff had purchased an interment plot from the cemetery prior to her son’s passing and had executed certain documents related to that purchase. One such document provided that “all interments and disinterments…shall be made only by [the Cemetery] unless otherwise approved by cemetery company.” The cemetery and funeral home were not related to each other in any way.

After the son’s death, plaintiff contracted with defendant funeral home to handle the funeral and body preparation. Plaintiff also signed an additional authorization with the cemetery and went to view the pre-selected plot at the cemetery.

I strongly encourage you to add “Trial Tested” to your list of podcasts.

“Trial Tested” is a podcast sponsored by the American College of Trial Lawyers.  It “presents enlightening discussions about life and law through interviews with prominent trial lawyers and significant figures in the world of trial law.”  The interviewees are accomplished trial lawyers (with a couple of non-lawyers thrown in for good measure) interviewed by one of three College Fellows –   Amy Gunn, Mike Herring, or Dave Paul.

Click here to see a list of the podcasts offered to date.   Tennessee’s own Mike Cody is interviewed for today’s podcast.

As 2022 comes to a close, here is a brief summary of the cases pending before the Tennessee Supreme Court.

There are twenty civil cases pending before the Court.  The “oldest” pending cases (calculated from the date of oral argument) are Gardner and Ultsch – both cases were argued April 6, 2022.  Review of the Mathes case was just accepted December 15.  Click here for a full list of pending civil cases, the subject matter involved, and their status.

There are ten criminal cases pending before the Court.  The “oldest” pending cases (once again calculated from the date of oral argument) are Forest  and Lyons – both cases were argued April 6, 2022. Review of the Dotson case was granted October 25.  Click here for a full list of pending civil cases, the subject matter involved, and their status.