Travelers Insurance v. Smith
991 S.W.2d 591 · 1999
Facts
Alva Smith died in a work-related accident on August 19, 1994, and Travelers Insurance, his employer's workers' compensation carrier, assigned Dan Ray to the claim. Despite the coroner confirming massive head trauma as the cause of death and no autopsy being necessary, Travelers insisted on one, suspecting a pre-existing condition. Mrs. Smith reluctantly agreed to an autopsy, but Travelers and Ray failed to arrange it, refusing to authorize embalming or funeral benefits for five days, effectively holding the body in refrigeration. This delay prevented an open-casket funeral and visitation, causing the body to deteriorate and the family to incur refrigeration costs and prolonged grief. The funeral was finally held one week after Mr. Smith's death, without an autopsy, though Travelers eventually paid some expenses and benefits.
Procedural history
Appellees sued appellants for the tort of outrage, and a jury returned a verdict in their favor. Appellants sought a judgment notwithstanding the verdict, which the trial court denied. Appellants then brought this appeal from that ruling and two other assignments of error, with the case certified to the supreme court as a second or subsequent appeal.
Issue
Whether the appellants' actions, specifically delaying the burial and embalming of the deceased, constituted the tort of outrage by interfering with the family's right to promptly bury their family member.
Holding
The court affirmed the trial court's decision, finding substantial evidence supported the jury's verdict that appellants committed the tort of outrage by delaying the burial and embalming.
Rule
The tort of outrage requires "willful and wanton conduct," meaning a person knows or should know their actions will naturally and probably cause emotional distress and continues in reckless disregard. "Extreme and outrageous conduct" must be so atrocious and intolerable as to go beyond all bounds of decency in a civilized society. Arkansas applies a strict, narrow view to this tort, requiring clear-cut proof, though not greater than a preponderance of the evidence. Nearest relatives have a quasi-property right in dead bodies, including the right to possession and custody for burial, arising from their duty to bury the deceased. Interference with this right, such as withholding a body or delaying interment, is an actionable wrong, and a willful violator may be liable for damages.
Read the full opinion on CourtListener
Case brief last reviewed . Prepared by CaseReader from the published opinion.