Procedural Posture

Appellant, mother of deceased child, sought review from Superior Court of Los Angeles County (California), which dismissed her complaint against respondent funeral home following the granting of a demurrer without leave to amend. Appellant initiated action against respondent for its alleged negligence surrounding the funeral and burial services of appellant’s daughter.

California Business Lawyer & Corporate Lawyer, Inc. provides Certificate of Incumbency Template

Overview

Appellant, mother of deceased child, entered into contract with respondent funeral home to take care of the funeral and burial services of appellant’s daughter. Appellant specifically advised respondent that she wanted the services to be private and that she did not want “punk rockers” disrupting the ceremony or her daughter’s gravesite. Respondent agreed to use all reasonable efforts and means to comply with appellant’s request. “Punk rockers” showed up at the funeral and the gravesite. The trial court dismissed appellant’s complaint and granted a demurrer without leave to amend. The court held that appellant’s complaint did express a duty by respondent to provide a private funeral for appellant. Pursuant to Cal. Health & Safety Code § 7100, the right to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person vested in the parent where there was no surviving spouse or child. The court held that appellant had the right to private services, including the right to exclude people from the service. The court held that appellant’s complaint stated a cause of action for negligent breach of that promise. The court reversed the order of the lower court dismissing appellant’s complaint.

Outcome

The court reversed order of the lower court dismissing appellant’s, mother of deceased child, complaint against respondent funeral home. The court held that appellant’s complaint did express a duty by respondent to provide a private funeral for appellant and that the complaint stated cause of action for the negligent breach of that promise. The court held that appellant had a statutory right to control the disposition of the remains of her child.