Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan

15 Citing cases

  1. Hogan v. Woodward Iron Company

    263 Ala. 513 (Ala. 1955)   Cited 6 times
    In Hogan v. Woodward Iron Co., 263 Ala. 513, 83 So.2d 248 (1955), the court held that "[i]n the event of damage to the grave of a deceased person, the right of action, if any, accrues first to the surviving spouse, unless, of course, there are special circumstances If there is no surviving spouse the right is in the next of kin in the order of their relation to the deceased."

    In event of damage to grave of deceased person, right of action, if any, is first in surviving husband or wife, and if there is no surviving husband or wife then the right is in the next of kin in order of their relation to decedent. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So. 161, 168; Ex parte Southern Life Health Ins. Co., 213 Ala. 413, 105 So. 168; Jefferson County Burial Soc. v. Scott, 218 Ala. 354, 118 So. 644; Jordan Undertaking Co. v. Asberry, 230 Ala. 97, 159 So. 683; Gostkowski v. Roman Catholic Church, 262 N.Y. 320, 186 N.E. 798; Johnson v. Kentucky-Virginia Stone Co., 286 Ky. 1, 149 S.W.2d 496; North East Coal Co. v. Wells, 253 Ky. 11, 68 S.W.2d 760; Smith Gaston Funeral Directors v. Wilson, 262 Ala. 401, 79 So.2d 48; Smith Gaston Funeral Directors v. Dean, 262 Ala. 600, 80 So.2d 227. In trespass for injury to common property all tenants in common must join as plaintiffs.

  2. Rhodes Mut. Life Ins. Co., Inc. v. Moore

    586 So. 2d 866 (Ala. 1991)   Cited 3 times

    "The rule above stated is consonant with this court's expressions as to the right of action for unlawful interference with the burial of deceased relatives. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So. 161, certiorari denied, 213 Ala. 413, 105 So. 168; Jefferson County Burial Soc. v. Scott, 218 Ala. 354, 118 So. 644."

  3. Brown v. Matthews Mortuary, Inc.

    118 Idaho 830 (Idaho 1990)   Cited 47 times
    Holding “ that an exception to the general rule involving damages for mental distress * * * exists in Idaho for cases involving mishandling of decedents' bodies and remains” and “ plaintiff entitled to recover need not manifest any accompanying physical injuries in order to recover for emotional distress in this particular type of case”

    22A Am.Jur.2d Dead Bodies § 86, p. 56 (1988); Vogelaar v. United States, 665 F. Supp. 1295 (E.D.Mich. 1987); Whitehair v. Highland Memory Gardens, Inc., 327 S.E.2d 438 (W.Va. 1985); Dumouchelle v. Duke University, 69 N.C. App. 471, 317 S.E.2d 100 (1984); Simpkins v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 200 S.C. 228, 20 S.E.2d 733 (1942); Steagall v. Doctors Hospital, 171 F.2d 352 (D.C. 1948); Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So. 161 (1925); Edwards v. Franke, 364 P.2d 60 (Alaska 1961); Pettigrew v. Pettigrew, 207 Pa. 313, 56 A. 878 (1904). But see Restatement (Second) of Torts § 868, comment g. Therefore, absent physical injury manifesting emotional distress, we hold that only the spouse, or next surviving kin, may bring a cause of action pursuant to this exception.

  4. Whitehair v. Highland Memory Gardens, Inc.

    174 W. Va. 458 (W. Va. 1985)   Cited 33 times
    Holding that " cause of action for negligent or intentional mishandling of a dead body does not require a showing of physical injury or pecuniary loss"

    Restatement (Second) of Torts § 868 (1979); Annot., 48 A.L.R.3d 240, 245 (1973); Annot., 48 A.L.R.3d 261, 264 (1973); see Dumouchelle v. Duke University, 69 N.C. App. 471, 317 S.E.2d 100 (1984); Simpkins v. Lumbermens Mut. Casualty Co., 200 S.C. 288, 20 S.E.2d 733 (1942). This is usually the surviving spouse, Steagall v. Doctors Hospital, 171 F.2d 352 (D.C. 1948); Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So. 161 (1925); Edwards v. Franke, 364 P.2d 60 (Alaska 1961); Pollard v. Phelps, 56 Ga. App. 408, 193 S.E. 102 (1937); Finn v. City of New York, 70 Misc.2d 947, 335 N.Y.S.2d 516 (1972), reversed on other grounds, 76 Misc.2d 388, 350 N.Y.S.2d 552 (1973); Apostle v. Pappas, 154 Misc. 497, 277 N.Y.S. 400 (1935); Pettigrew v. Pettigrew, 207 Pa. 313, 56 A. 878 (1904); Annot., 48 A.L.R.3d 240, 243 (1973), provided that he or she was living with the decedent at the time of death, Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, supra; Steagall v. Doctors Hospital, supra; Teasley v. Thompson, 204 Ark. 959, 165 S.W.2d 940 (1942), and has not waived his or her right. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, supra; Teasley v. Thompson, supra; Apostle v. Pappas, supra; Gostkowski v. Roman Catholic Church of Sacred Hearts of Jesus and Mary, supra. If the spouse is deceased, the cause of action passes to the next of kin, in order of relation established by the statute governing intestate succession. Teasley v. Thompson

  5. Payne v. Alabama Cemetery Ass'n, Inc.

    413 So. 2d 1067 (Ala. 1982)   Cited 40 times
    Holding that where “the act complained of does not itself inflict a legal injury at the time it is done, but plaintiff's injury only follows as a result and a subsequent development of the defendant's act . . . the cause of action ‘accrues,' and the statute of limitation begins to run, when and only when, the damages are sustained.”

    The plaintiff, being the nearest relative present, is a proper party to bring the action in tort, irrespective of any other possible theory of recovery. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So.2d 161, cert. denied, 213 Ala. 413, 105 So. 168 (1925). Appellees allege, as another ground for affirmance, however, that appellant's non-trespass claim is barred by the applicable one year statute of limitations.

  6. Ex Parte Slade

    382 So. 2d 1127 (Ala. 1980)   Cited 38 times
    In Slade, the petitioner claimed that the Probate Court of Henry County had judicially determined that she was the common law wife of the decedent and had previously appointed her as the decedent's guardian on the ground of his mental incompetency.

    The petitioner could have sought relief in that proceeding by going forward to establish her entitlement to custody of the body, thus giving Judge White an opportunity to rule upon that issue. Cf. Sou. Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 10, 105 So. 161 (1925). And see Jordan Undertaking Co. v. Asberry, 230 Ala. 97, 159 So. 683 (1935).

  7. Rehling v. Carr

    295 Ala. 366 (Ala. 1976)   Cited 5 times

    The blood sample, being a part of the remains of the deceased, is due to be returned to the surviving spouse (the plaintiff-appellee here) who has a paramount right thereto. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 21 Ala. App. 5, 105 So. 161 (1925), cert. den., 213 Ala. 413, 105 So. 168. The judgment of the trial court is affirmed to the extent that the blood sample is ordered to be returned to appellee.

  8. Bell v. Birmingham Broadcasting Company

    263 Ala. 355 (Ala. 1955)   Cited 21 times

    To establish the existence of a custom, it must be shown that the custom was general in character, had existed a long period of time and was known or should have been known to all the parties involved in the transaction. Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 213 Ala. 413, 105 So. 161; Herring v. Skaggs, 73 Ala. 446; Byrd v. Beall, 150 Ala. 122, 43 So. 749. A question directed to a witness as to what he usually did is illegal and immaterial to establishment of a custom. 10 Words Phrases, Custom, p. 729; Sloss-Sheffield S. I. Co. v. Smith, Ala., 40 So. 91.

  9. Arnold v. Spears

    217 Miss. 209 (Miss. 1953)   Cited 13 times
    In Arnold v. Spears, 217 Miss. 209, 63 So.2d 850, suggestion of error dismissed, 65 So.2d 296 (1953), the Mississippi Supreme Court announced that state's recognition of a legal right to possession of a dead body for burial and the propriety of a suit for damages based on unlawful interference with such right.

    Cited the following: Jefferson County Burial Society v. Scott, 147 So. 634; Kirksey v. Jernigan, 45 So.2d 188; Southern Life and Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 105 So. 161; Wright v. Hollywood Cemetery Corp., 112 Ga. 884, 52 L.R.A. 621. McGEHEE, C.J.

  10. Stephenson v. Duke University

    163 S.E. 698 (N.C. 1932)   Cited 7 times
    In Stephenson v. Duke University, 202 N.C. 624 (625), is the following: "This action was brought to recover damages for the mutilation or autopsy of the dead body of a child.

    The Court of Appeals of Alabama has said: "The right of a father to care for, watch over, and bury the dead body of his minor child has always been recognized and protected by the law." Birmingham Transfer Traffic Co. v. Still, 61 So. 611. Also in Southern Life Health Ins. Co. v. Morgan, 105 So. 161: "It is without conflict in this case that plaintiff was the father of the deceased; that, if he (the deceased) had a wife living, the wife was not present and had nothing to do with the custody of the body. In the absence of the wife the father had the lawful custody of the body, and it was his duty to give it decent interment.