This summary was computer-generated without any editorial revision. It is not official, has not been checked for accuracy, and is NOT citable.
Facts
The case arose when a funeral home, Strong-Thorne Mortuary, disturbed the grave of a deceased family member, Vondaine Jaynes, while preparing a burial site for another family member, Kiro Jaynes, in the family plot. The disturbance exposed Vondaine's remains, and the site was left uncovered, leading to further desecration. The family alleged that Strong-Thorne failed to follow proper procedures, including using a spotter during grave digging, and did not notify the family of the damage (paras 1-8).
Procedural History
- District Court, Bernalillo County: Granted summary judgment in favor of Strong-Thorne Mortuary on all claims, including breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, negligent infliction of emotional distress, and prima facie tort (paras 2, 24).
Parties' Submissions
- Appellants (Plaintiffs): Argued that Strong-Thorne breached its contract by disturbing Vondaine's grave, failed to act in good faith, and caused emotional distress through negligent and intentional actions. They also claimed to be third-party beneficiaries of the burial contract and sought damages for emotional distress and prima facie tort (paras 10, 13, 17, 18, 21, 26).
- Appellee (Defendant): Contended that no contract existed with the plaintiffs, as the burial contract was with Kiro's son, Arthur. They argued that there was no breach of contract, no extreme or outrageous conduct to support intentional infliction of emotional distress, and no contemporaneous sensory perception by the plaintiffs to establish negligent infliction of emotional distress. They also denied malicious intent for prima facie tort (paras 12, 13, 19, 22, 27).
Legal Issues
- Was there a breach of contract, and were the plaintiffs third-party beneficiaries of the burial contract?
- Did the defendant's conduct amount to intentional infliction of emotional distress?
- Did the plaintiffs meet the requirements for negligent infliction of emotional distress?
- Did the defendant's actions constitute a prima facie tort?
Disposition
- The Supreme Court of New Mexico affirmed the district court's grant of summary judgment in favor of Strong-Thorne Mortuary on all claims (para 28).
Reasons
Per Franchini CJ (Baca and Serna JJ. concurring):
- Breach of Contract: The Court found that the plaintiffs were third-party beneficiaries of the burial contract between Arthur and Strong-Thorne. However, the Court held that there were no damages to support the claim, as Vondaine's remains were reinterred, and Arthur was reimbursed for Kiro's burial costs (paras 17, 28).
- Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress: The Court ruled that Strong-Thorne's conduct, while negligent, did not rise to the level of extreme and outrageous behavior required to establish intentional infliction of emotional distress (paras 19-20).
- Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress: The Court held that the plaintiffs did not meet the "contemporaneous sensory perception" requirement, as they did not directly witness the disturbance of Vondaine's grave. Additionally, the plaintiffs failed to demonstrate severe emotional distress (paras 22-24).
- Prima Facie Tort: The Court concluded that Strong-Thorne's actions lacked the malicious intent necessary to establish a prima facie tort (para 27).
The Court emphasized that while the funeral home's actions were improper, they did not meet the legal thresholds for the claims brought by the plaintiffs.