Plaintiff surviving relative sought review of the order of the Superior Court of Riverside County (California) sustaining defendant mortuary’s demurrer and dismissing plaintiff’s complaint for negligent performance of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deceit upon a finding that the complaint failed to plead recognized damages.
Overview
Defendant mortuary cremated the body of the brother of plaintiff surviving relative. When the cremated remains were shipped, the package arrived empty. Plaintiff brought suit for negligent performance of a contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and deceit, seeking damages for emotional distress for all causes and punitive damages for the latter two causes. The trial court sustained defendant’s demurrer, holding that plaintiff failed to plead recognized damages. The court reversed the trial court’s judgment on the demurrer regarding negligent performance of a contract. The court held that emotional distress without physical injury was a recognized type of damage for certain breaches of contract, particularly ones involving mishandling of corpses, and was recognized as a valid ground of damages in tort. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of demurrer regarding the intentional infliction of emotional distress and deceit causes, finding they had no support in plaintiff’s pleadings. As a result, plaintiff could not recover punitive damages.
Outcome
The court reversed the dismissal of the negligent performance of contract claim. The court held that damages for mental distress were recoverable without a showing of physical injury when a corpse is negligently mishandled by a mortuary. The court affirmed the trial court’s judgment of demurrer as to deceit and intentional infliction. The court therefore held that plaintiff surviving relative could not recover punitive damages.
Procedural Posture
Plaintiffs, the lessees of a space at a mobile home park, sued defendant park owner and other defendants for, among other things, breach of written contract and negligence. The Los Angeles County Superior Court, California, granted summary judgment in favor of defendants. On the breach of contract claim, the trial court concluded that the park owner did not owe the lessees a duty to evict a troublesome neighbor. The lessees appealed. The parties were counseled by their respective small business lawyer in California.
Overview
The lessees alleged the park owner breached the lease by failing to take any action against the neighbor. The instant court held that a mobile home park owner cannot disregard conduct by a tenant upon the park premises that constitutes a substantial annoyance to other homeowners or residents. The trial court erred insofar as it granted summary judgment in favor of the park owner on the lessees’ cause of action for breach of the lease. The park owner as a matter of law owed the lessees a contractual duty to preserve their quiet enjoyment. The California Mobilehome Residency Law, Cal. Civ. Code ยง 798 et seq., expressly preserved the park owner’s ability to secure the quiet enjoyment of its tenants by authorizing the park owner to pursue eviction or injunctive relief against offending tenants. Triable issues of fact existed regarding whether the park owner breached its obligation under the lease to preserve the lessees’ quiet enjoyment. However, the trial court properly granted summary judgment in favor of defendants on the negligence claim. There was an insufficient showing that defendants were put on notice of the neighbor’s propensity for violence.
Outcome
The judgment was reversed insofar as it granted summary judgment in favor of the park owner on the cause of action for breach of written contract, and was otherwise affirmed. The lessees were awarded their costs on appeal.