Justice v. SCI Ga. Funeral Servs., Inc.
Decision Date | 14 November 2014 |
Docket Number | No. A14A0949.,A14A0949. |
Citation | 329 Ga.App. 635,765 S.E.2d 778 |
Court | Georgia Court of Appeals |
Parties | JUSTICE et al. v. SCI GEORGIA FUNERAL SERVICES, INC. et al. |
James D. Patrick Jr., for Appellant.
Weinberg, Wheeler, Hudgins, Gunn & Dial, John Michael Hawkins, Stephen William Mooney, Atlanta, for Appellees.
This appeal is from a grant of summary judgment to the funeral home defendants in a case arising out their failure to ensure that the cremated remains of appellant's decedent were in the urn that was to contain them. Appellant's claims include breach of contract, interference with burial rights, invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress and trespass. The grant of summary judgment on the breach of contract claim was premised on the trial court's finding that there were no actual damages arising from the alleged breach. That finding was correct, but because nominal damages may still be recovered, summary judgment on that claim was improper and must be reversed. As to the remaining claims challenged on appeal, there exist no genuine issues of material fact and we thus affirm the grant of summary judgment on those claims.
Summary judgment is appropriate “if the pleadings, depositions, answers to interrogatories, and admissions on file, together with the affidavits, if any, show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” OCGA § 9–11–56(c). We apply a de novo standard of review “to an appeal from a grant of summary judgment, and we view the evidence, and all reasonable conclusions and inferences drawn from it, in the light most favorable to the nonmovant.” Moore v. Camara, 317 Ga.App. 651, 652, 732 S.E.2d 319 (2012).
So viewed, the evidence shows that Monica Rivera passed away on December 22, 2007. The following day, Rivera's mother, Linda Justice, contracted with SCI Georgia Funeral Services, Inc., d/b/a Striffler–Hamby Mortuary, to provide cremation and memorial services for $4,850. Among other things, the contract provided for transfer of the cremated remains from the crematory to the funeral home, an urn, and a memorial service. The memorial service was held on the morning of December 28, 2007, in the Striffler–Hamby funeral home chapel. In preparing for the service, funeral director Dale Land retrieved the urn with Rivera's name noted on it from an office in the funeral home, looked inside the urn, saw that it contained a temporary container used to hold the decedent's ashes, and assumed that Rivera's ashes were inside that container. Land placed the urn in the chapel for the service. At the conclusion of the service, Land gave the urn to Justice, who took it to her house and put it on her mantel.
Later that afternoon, Rivera's ashes were delivered by the crematory to the funeral home. Upon learning of the delivery and that the ashes were not in the urn, Land called Justice and asked if he could come speak with her. Justice agreed, and Land then drove to her house. Once there, he explained that the ashes were not in the urn and apologized. He asked for permission to take the urn back to the funeral home so he could put the ashes in it. Justice gave him permission to do so.
After he had returned to the funeral home, Land opened the temporary container in the urn and found that it was indeed empty. He then put Rivera's cremated remains inside it and drove back to Justice's house. He knocked on the screen door, heard voices inside, entered and placed the urn with the ashes back on the mantel in the living room. Justice and a friend then came into the room and spoke briefly with Land. He assured Justice that he had personally placed the decedent's ashes in the urn, apologized again, and left. Thereafter, Striffler–Hamby canceled the amount due under the contract, did not charge Justice for the services provided, and did not collect any money for the services.
Two years later, in November 2009, Justice, her mother Dorothy Wire, and other family members filed the instant lawsuit against Striffler–Hamby and Land. The trial court granted summary judgment to the defendants. This appeal followed.
Justice and the other appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on the breach of contract claim because there exists a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the failure to have the decedent's ashes at the memorial service constituted a breach of the agreement. We agree.
In granting summary judgment, the trial court reasoned that pretermitting any breach, Justice suffered no pecuniary damage because “Striffler–Hamby zeroed out the contract such that there was no charge by the funeral home at all.” The trial court was correct in finding that the evidence, including the deposition testimony of both Justice and Wire, unequivocally shows that the funeral home did not charge them or collect payment for the services provided. But the lack of such damages flowing from the presumed breach did not authorize the court's entry of summary judgment.
Eastview Healthcare v. Synertx, Inc., 296 Ga.App. 393, 399(4), 674 S.E.2d 641 (2009).
In this case, there is, at the very least, a genuine issue of material fact as to whether the funeral home's failure to ensure that the decedent's ashes were in the urn during the memorial service constituted a breach of the memorial services contract. So even though there is a lack of evidence that the appellants sustained actual damages arising from the alleged breach, such lack of evidence Id. See also Crippen v. Outback Steakhouse Intl., 321 Ga.App. 167, 170(1), 741 S.E.2d 280 (2013) ( ); Hearn v. Dollar Rent A Car, 315 Ga.App. 164, 174(1)(e), 726 S.E.2d 661 (2012) ( ). The trial court's grant of summary judgment on that basis must therefore be reversed.
The appellants contend that the trial court erred in granting summary judgment on their claim of interference with burial rights. The contention is without merit.
Pyle v. Pyle, 243 Ga.App. 398, 400(2), 531 S.E.2d 738 (2000) (citations and punctuation omitted).
In this case, there is no evidence that Land or the funeral home acted wilfully or wantonly. Rather, at most, the evidence shows that they acted negligently in failing to ensure that the cremated remains were in the urn during the memorial service. “A demonstration of mere negligence is not sufficient to show wilful or wanton behavior.” McNeal Loftis, Inc. v. Helmey, 218 Ga.App. 628, 629, 462 S.E.2d 789 (1995). Because the appellants failed to show the existence of a genuine issue of material fact as to the “element [of wilful or wanton conduct] necessary to recover for tortious interference with burial rights, the trial court [did not err in granting] the motion for summary judgment as to that claim.” Id. at 630, 462 S.E.2d 789.
The appellants argue that the trial court erroneously granted summary judgment on their invasion of privacy claim. The argument is without merit.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mayorga v. Benton
... ... Saturday, and reports that the people at the funeral home ... made a mockery of him being involved in a same sex ... Winn-Dixie Atlanta, Inc. , 176 Ga.App. 227, 230 (1) (335 ... S.E.2d 445) (1985) (defendant's ... at 773 ... The ... concerns Justice Hunstein expressed in Lee remain ... evergreen. But medical ... ...
-
Plantation At Bay Creek Homeowners Ass'n, Inc. v. Glasier
...(Punctuation omitted.) Kirkland v. Tamplin , 285 Ga. App. 241, 245 (2), 645 S.E.2d 653 (2007).21 Justice v. SCI Ga. Funeral Svcs. , 329 Ga. App. 635, 639 (4), 765 S.E.2d 778 (2014), quoting Ruotanen , 246 Ga. App. at 436, 541 S.E.2d 66.22 (Punctuation omitted.) Abdul-Malik v. AirTran Airway......
-
Moore v. Lovein Funeral Home, Inc.
...some of Pauline's ashes to Howard upon receipt from the Crematory, without Moore's authorization. Justice v. SCI Georgia Funeral Svcs., Inc. , 329 Ga. App. 635, 637 (1), 765 S.E.2d 778 (2014). See also Ly v. Jimmy Carter Commons , 286 Ga. 831, 833 (1), 691 S.E.2d 852 (2010) ("On summary jud......
-
Morrison v. Kicklighter
... ... in OCGA 5520 (verdict contrary to evidence and principles of justice and equity) or 5521 (verdict strongly against weight of evidence), the ... 595, 596597, 669 S.E.2d 554 (2008) ; Vol Repairs II, Inc. v. Knighten, 322 Ga.App. 416, 420421, 745 S.E.2d 673 (2013).Judgment ... ...