Sherer v. Rubin Memorial Chapel, Ltd., 83-1538.
| Decision Date | 15 February 1984 |
| Docket Number | No. 83-1538.,83-1538. |
| Citation | 452 So.2d 574 |
| Parties | Herman SHERER, Gerald Sherer, Myron Sherer, Fay Flicker, Marilyn Seiden and Caron Cornett, Appellants, v. RUBIN MEMORIAL CHAPEL, LTD., a Florida Limited Partnership, and Murray N. Rubin, Appellees. |
| Court | Florida District Court of Appeals |
Bradley S. Hartman of Litman, Muchnick & Wasserman, Hollywood, for appellants.
Michael C. Mattson of Conrad, Scherer & James, Fort Lauderdale, for appellees.
Appellants challenge an order dismissing their amended complaint with prejudice in a case concerning the mishandling of a corpse.
Appellants, relatives of the deceased Beth Sherer, alleged in their complaint that they entrusted the body of the decedent to appellees' care to provide all funeral services including preparation of her corpse for an open casket service and burial. They further alleged that when they arrived at the funeral home they found another body dressed in decedent's burial clothing.
Appellees' employees allegedly spent one-half hour trying to convince appellants that the body was the decedent. Upon admitting their error, appellees made arrangements to have the decedent's corpse delivered from storage. Appellees then removed the burial clothing from the wrong corpse and, rather than properly dressing and preparing the decedent's corpse for the planned open casket service, simply threw the burial clothing over the unprepared corpse leaving numerous ugly bruises on her arms exposed. Appellants filed suit to recover for pain, suffering and mental anguish. On motion to dismiss, appellants' counsel conceded there was nothing further to allege. Thus the trial court dismissed the amended complaint with prejudice.
Appellants recognize that under present Florida law they cannot recover for pain, suffering and mental anguish absent some impact or physical injury unless they can show willful, wanton or malicious behavior. Gilliam v. Stewart, 291 So.2d 593 (Fla. 1974). The courts of Florida have recognized the right to recover for mental pain and anguish where malice can be implied or imputed from an entire want of care or great indifference of others. Therefore, the issue is whether the facts in this case are sufficient to imply or impute malice. See Crane v. Loftin, 70 So.2d 574 (Fla. 1954).
Appellants rely on Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So.2d 188 (Fla. 1950). In Kirksey, an undertaker took the body of a five year old child, killed by accident, from her home in her mother's absence. The mother went to the undertaker and demanded the release of the body. The undertaker refused, embalmed the body, and would not release the body until the mother paid an excessive fee. The court stated:
Where the wrongful act is such as to reasonably imply malice, or where, from the entire want of care of attention to duty, or great indifference to the persons, property, or rights of others, such malice will be imputed as would justify the assessment of exemplary or punitive damages. See 15 Am.Jur., Damages, Sec. 179,...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Crocker v. Pleasant
...DCA 1985) (intentional infliction of mental distress for failure to properly dispose of decedent's ashes); Sherer v. Rubin Mem'l Chapel, Ltd., 452 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (holding that relatives of deceased alleged facts sufficient to impute malice in mishandling of corpse); Sche......
-
Owens-Benniefield v. Nationstar Mortg. LLC
...employee calling plaintiff and threatening to kill her if she did not pay him—was not outrageous), with Sherer v. Rubin Mem'l Chapel, Ltd., 452 So.2d 574, 575 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984) (reversing dismissal where a funeral home dressed the wrong corpse, tried to convince plaintiffs that the corpse......
-
Williams v. City of Minneola
...National Cremation Society, Inc., 471 So.2d 163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Sherer v. Rubin Memorial Chapel, Ltd., 444 So.2d 1176 and 452 So.2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984). INVASION OF PRIVACY There are two basic problems with the appellants' invasion of privacy theories: 5 First, the publicity given t......
-
Gonzalez v. Metropolitan Dade County Public Health Trust, 92-1462
...163 (Fla. 2d DCA 1985); Ponton v. Scarfone, 468 So.2d 1009 (Fla. 2d DCA), rev. denied 478 So.2d 54 (Fla.1985); Sherer v. Rubin Mem. Chapel, Ltd., 452 So.2d 574 (Fla. 4th DCA 1984); Scheuer v. Wille, 385 So.2d 1076 (Fla. 4th DCA 1980); Trueba v. Pershing Indus., Inc., 374 So.2d 47 (Fla. 3d D......
-
ON TIME, (IN)EQUALITY, AND DEATH.
...Mayer, No. N12C-10-126,2015 WL 756981, at *4 (Del. Super. Ct. Feb. 11,2015). (199.) Id. at *5. (200.) Sherer v. Rubin Mem'l Chapel, Ltd., 452 So. 2d 574, 575 (Fla. Dist. Ct. App. (201.) Winkle v. Zettler Funeral Homes, Inc., 912 N.E.2d 151, 158 (Ohio Ct. App. 2009) (quoting O'Toole v. Denih......