Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller
Decision Date | 26 September 2003 |
Citation | 878 So.2d 267 |
Parties | AKINS FUNERAL HOME, INC. v. Andrea Megan MILLER. Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Teresa Miller. |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
R. Larry Bradford and Shane T. Sears of Bradford Law Firm, P.C., Birmingham, for appellant.
Barry A. Ragsdale of Ivey & Ragsdale, Birmingham; and Garve W. Ivey, Jr., of Ivey & Ragsdale, Jasper, for appellee Andrea Megan Miller.
L. Andrew Hollis and Gregory M. Zarzaur of Hollis & Wright, P.C., Birmingham, for appellee Teresa Miller.
These cases, which were consolidated for trial, arise out of an automobile accident in which three young people were killed. Andrea Megan Miller and Teresa Miller, surviving relatives of one of the accident victims, sued the two funeral homes that were involved with the funeral arrangements of one of the victims, whose body was cremated rather than buried as the surviving relatives desired. The Millers settled their claims against one of the funeral homes, but the case involving Akins Funeral Home, Inc., went to trial before a jury, which returned a verdict for the Millers.
These appeals present three legal issues: (1) whether the trial court erred in allowing a witness, who was not a psychologist or psychiatrist, to testify as an expert and offer what Akins alleges were medical opinions; (2) whether the jury's award of compensatory damages in both cases was against the great weight of the evidence; and (3) whether the punitive-damages awards were excessive.
We have carefully reviewed the facts and the law relating to the issues presented, and we conclude that the trial court did not err; therefore, we affirm.
Nineteen-year-old Matthew Miller ("Matt") and two others were killed in an automobile accident that occurred on February 20, 2000. When he arrived at the scene of the accident, a volunteer fireman, Kenny Colburn, thought he recognized the automobile involved in the accident as belonging to his stepdaughter, Andrea Megan Miller, who was Matt's wife. He left the scene of the accident and went to the house of Teresa Miller, Matt's mother. He learned from Teresa that Megan was safe, but that Matt had left in the automobile. Colburn returned to the accident scene with Teresa Miller and Tommy Miller, Matt's brother. When they arrived, they were informed that all three occupants of the car, including Matt, had been killed.
All three bodies were transported to the Kilgore-Green Funeral Home in Jasper. The Miller family decided to use Akins Funeral Home, Inc. ("Akins"), to handle Matt's funeral, and at the request of the family, Doil Akins traveled to Jasper and retrieved what had been identified as Matt's body; the body, however, was the body of Johnny Russell, who was also killed in the accident. The Russell family arranged with Kilgore-Green to cremate Russell's body, although it was in fact Matt's body that was cremated. That night, Akins embalmed the body of Johnny Russell.
On February 21, 2000, Megan, Teresa, and other members of the Miller family went to Akins Funeral Home to make the arrangements for Matt's funeral. At the funeral home they met with Raymond Vernon, the funeral director, and Teresa signed a contract. The evidence presented at trial by the plaintiffs, including the testimony of Teresa; Randy Calhoun, Matt's uncle; Tommy Miller; and Colburn, indicated that before the family left the funeral home, Teresa asked to view her son's body; Vernon told her that, until one-half of the funeral expenses were paid, she could not see the body and the body would not be delivered to the church for the funeral.1 Evidence presented by the Millers indicated that Akins ultimately agreed to deliver the body to the church for the funeral where checks would be collected from various relatives to pay one-half of the funeral expenses.
Vernon disputed the evidence presented by the Millers regarding what took place at the funeral home. He testified that no member of the immediate family asked to view the body, that he did not deny family members the privilege of viewing the body, and that he would have delivered the body to the church for the funeral regardless of whether the funeral expenses had been paid.
The funeral was scheduled to take place the evening of February 21, 2000, at the Thorptown Holiness Church, and Vernon transported the body to the church. With approximately 400 mourners present, the casket was opened, and Teresa viewed the body for the first time. It was at that time that all present realized that a mistake had been made and that the body in the casket was not Matt's body. Vernon returned to Akins Funeral Home with the body, and telephoned Kilgore-Green Funeral Home. During that telephone conversation Vernon learned that Matt's body had been cremated that afternoon.
In support of their claims, the Millers presented testimony regarding the traumatic effect the unintentional cremation of Matt's body had upon them. Evidence was also presented to show the religious and moral objections to cremation Matt and his family shared. The Millers also presented evidence indicating that Teresa attempted suicide twice over the few weeks following Matt's cremation and Teresa testified that she believed because Matt was not buried "in a humanly state and only his ashes that he could not be resurrected in the eyes of God." Testimony was also presented indicating that Megan "has not been the same" since the cremation; that she suffers from nightmares and flashbacks; and that she struggles with how she will tell her and Matt's son that his father was cremated in violation of his beliefs and wishes.
Teresa and Megan each sued Akins, alleging negligence and wantonness, the tort of outrage, breach of contract, trespass, and abuse of a corpse.2 As pointed out above, Teresa's case and Megan's case were consolidated, and at the conclusion of the trial, Megan's case was submitted to the jury on the counts alleging negligence, wantonness, and the tort of outrage. Teresa's case was submitted to the jury on the counts alleging breach of contract, negligence and wantonness, and the tort of outrage. The jury returned a verdict against Akins and in favor of both plaintiffs. The jury assessed compensatory damages at $450,000 and punitive damages at $150,000, for a total of $600,000 in Megan's case; in Teresa's case, the jury assessed compensatory damages of $200,000 and punitive damages of $150,000, for a total of $350,000.
In each case, Akins filed a motion for a new trial and a motion to remit the punitive damages; those motions were denied.
Because each issue that is before us has a different standard of review, we will state the standard of review that applies to each issue.
In reviewing a ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony, this Court must determine whether the trial court exceeded its discretion in allowing the expert testimony. In Tidwell v. Upjohn Co., 626 So.2d 1297, 1300 (Ala.1993), this Court stated: "[A] ruling on the admissibility of expert testimony is largely within the discretion of the trial court and will not be overturned unless there has been an abuse of discretion." In Bagley v. Mazda Motor Corp., 864 So.2d 301, 304 (2003), this Court quoted Ammons v. Massey-Ferguson, Inc., 663 So.2d 961, 962 (Ala.1995), quoting in turn Townsend v. General Motors Corp., 642 So.2d 411, 423 (Ala.1994), and restated the principle as follows: "`"[W]hether a particular witness will be allowed to testify as an expert is left to the sound discretion of the trial court, whose decision will not be disturbed on appeal except for abuse of discretion."'"
The second issue presented here is whether the compensatory-damages awards were excessive. This Court has stated the following in determining whether a compensatory-damages award for mental anguish is excessive:
" " Daniels [v. East Alabama Paving, Inc.], 740 So.2d [1033,] 1044 [(Ala.1999)] (citations omitted [in Daniels])."
National Ins. Ass'n v. Sockwell, 829 So.2d 111, 135 (Ala.2002)
.
When reviewing whether a punitive-damages award is excessive, the third issue presented in this case, this Court conducts a de novo review. In Orkin Exterminating Co. v. Jeter, 832 So.2d 25, 39 (Ala.2001), this Court stated:
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pensacola Motor Sales, Inc. v. Daphne Auto., LLC
... ... and of being an enemy of the country he loves and is proud to call home. According to Esfahani's own testimony, his fears in this regard were so ... See Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller, 878 So.2d 267, 271 (Ala.2003). 8 1 ... ...
-
Arrington v. State Farm Ins. Co.
... ... State Farm would provide coverage if the Arringtons' home suffered a covered peril. (Doc. 1-9 14-15). In December ... 1332. 1 Pretka v. Kolter City Plaza II, Inc., 608 F.3d 744, 752 (11th Cir.2010); Lowery v. Ala. Power ... elderly man's life savings under false pretenses"); Akins Funeral Home, Inc., v. Miller, 878 So. 2d 267, 279 (Ala ... ...
-
Watts v. SCI Funeral Servs., LLC
... ... v ... Am ... Home Assur ... Co ., 264 F.3d 1040, 1050 (11th Cir. 2001). Here, Defendants ... Triggs v ... John Crump Toyota , Inc ., 154 F.3d 1284, 1287 (11th Cir. 1998). An individual is considered a ... v ... Lloyd , 729 So. 2d 280 (Ala. 1999) ($2 million verdict), Akins Funeral Home , Inc ... v ... Miller , 878 So. 2d 267 (Ala. 2003) ($200,000 ... ...
-
Jordan v. Continental Airlines, Inc.
... ... by family members, walked to the airport entrance and was driven home. He was later taken to the hospital where he subsequently died from a ... In Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller, 878 So.2d 267 (Ala.2003), our supreme ... ...
-
Point: Justice Must Satisfy the Appearance of Justice-a 10-year Review of the Alabama Supreme Court's Treatment of Jury Verdicts in the Plaintiffs' Favor
...future compensatory and $345,000 punitive; affirmed without opinion but with dissent by Justice See); Akins Funeral Home v. Miller, 878 So. 2d 267 (Ala. 2003)($200,000 compensatory and $150,000 punitive); Southern Pine Elec. Coop. v. Birch, 878 So. 2d 1120 (Ala. 2003)($20,000 compensatory a......
-
Post-judgment Review of Punitive Damages
...The hearing may not be used to re-litigate the defendant's liability for punitive damages, see Akins Funeral Home, Inc. v. Miller, 878 So. 2d 267, 279-80 (Ala. 2003); rather, the hearing is for the purpose of examining the amount of punitive damages. VI. The Trial Court's Review and Order T......