Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

plaintifftrialmotion

plaintiffdefendanttrialmotionwillrespondentappellant

Related Cases

Corrigal v. Ball & Dodd Funeral Home, Inc., 89 Wash.2d 959, 577 P.2d 580

Facts

Mary Jane Corrigal's son, David Brannan, drowned in the Spokane River. Before his body was recovered, she contacted Ball and Dodd Funeral Home to arrange for his cremation and selected a burial urn from their catalog, paying for both the urn and the cremation. After the cremation, when she claimed her son's remains, she received a sealed cardboard box containing a plastic sack, which she initially believed was packing material. Upon discovering that the sack contained her son's cremated remains, she experienced significant mental distress.

Appellant's son, David Brannan, drowned in the Spokane River. Prior to recovery of his body, appellant contacted respondent Ball and Dodd Funeral Home concerning cremation of the body. Respondent informed appellant that a suitable container would be needed for interment of the remains after cremation and provided appellant with a catalog from which to select a burial urn. Appellant selected an urn and paid respondent for it and the cost of cremation.

Issue

Did the trial court err in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6)?

The only substantive issue before us is whether the trial court erred in dismissing the complaint for failure to state a claim under CR 12(b)(6).

Rule

A motion made pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) must be denied unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the complaint, which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.

We have repeatedly said that a motion made pursuant to CR 12(b)(6) must be denied unless it appears beyond doubt that the plaintiff can prove no set of facts, consistent with the complaint, which would entitle the plaintiff to relief.

Analysis

The court found that Corrigal's allegations, if proven, could establish a cause of action for negligent infliction of mental distress. The court noted that the funeral home had a duty to avoid the negligent infliction of such distress and that the absence of the urn and the failure to disclose this fact could lead to mental suffering. The court emphasized that the factual allegations must be accepted as true for the purposes of the motion, and thus, the trial court's dismissal was inappropriate.

Here appellant alleged respondent agreed to cremate the body of her son, place his remains in an urn, and deliver the urn to her. She also alleged respondent failed to provide the urn and failed to disclose the absence of the urn when appellant claimed her son's remains. These derelictions are alleged to have caused appellant to handsift through what appellant thought was “packing material”, resulting in her mental suffering when she discovered that the material was in fact the cremated remains of her son.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court reversed the trial court's dismissal of the complaint and remanded the case for trial.

Based upon the foregoing, we cannot say beyond doubt appellant will be unable to prove any set of facts which would entitle her to relief for defendant's alleged negligent infliction of mental distress.

Who won?

Mary Jane Corrigal prevailed in the case because the Supreme Court found that her complaint stated a valid cause of action for negligent infliction of mental distress.

Appellant has stated a cause of action for negligent infliction of mental distress under Hunsley v. Giard, 87 Wash.2d 424, 553 P.2d 1096 (1976).

You must be

Log In to Casey

Sign Up to Casey

Reset Your Password

Keywords

Related Cases

Pierce v. City of Philadelphia, 391 F.Supp.3d 419, 2019 Fair Empl.Prac.Cas. (BNA) 218,460

Com. of Puerto Rico v. SS Zoe Colocotroni, 61 F.R.D. 653, 18 Fed.R.Serv.2d 322

R & A, Inc. v. Kozy Korner, Inc., 672 A.2d 1062

Long v. McAllister, 319 N.W.2d 256

Johnson v. Penrod Drilling Co., 510 F.2d 234, 1975 A.M.C. 2161