Christensen v. Superior Court (Pasadena Crematorium of Altadena) (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868 , 2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79; 820 P.2d 181 (1991)


Christensen?v.?Superior?Court?(Pasadena?Crematorium?of?Altadena)?(1991)?54?Cal.3d?868?,?2?Cal.Rptr.2d?79;?820?P.2d?181

[No.?S016890.
Dec?2,?1991.]

DONALD?PAUL?CHRISTENSEN?et?al.,?Petitioners,?v.?THE?SUPERIOR?COURT?OF?LOS?ANGELES?COUNTY,?Respondent;?PASADENA?CREMATORIUM?OF?ALTADENA?et?al.,?Real?Parties?in?Interest.

(Superior?Court?of?Los?Angeles?County,?No.?C634121,?Barnet?M.?Cooperman,?Judge.)

(Opinion?by?Baxter,?J.,?with?Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?George,?JJ.,?and?Turner?(Paul?A.),?J.,fn.?*?concurring.?Separate?concurring?and?dissenting?opinions?by?Mosk?and?Kennard,?JJ.)

COUNSEL

Robie?&?Matthai,?Edith?R.?Matthai,?Pamela?E.?Dunn,?Lieff,?Cabraser?&?Heimann,?Elizabeth?Joan?Cabraser,?William?Bernstein,?William?M.?Audet,?Kronick,?Moskovitz,?Tiedemann?&?Girard,?William?A.?Kershaw,?Robin?Leslie?Stewart,?Michael?McShane,?Belli,?Belli,?Brown,?Monzione,?Fabbro?&?Zakaria,?Melvin?E.?Belli,?Sr.,?Richard?Brown,?Wilner,?Narwitz,?Lewin?&?Klein,?Wilner,?Klein,?Siegel?&?Kehr,?Walter?Klein,?Sayre,?Moreno,?Purcell?&?Boucher?and?Gilbert?S.?Purcell?for?Petitioners.

No?appearance?for?Respondent.?[54?Cal.3d?875]

Marlin?&?Saltzman,?Marlin,?Saltzman?&?White,?Louis?M.?Marlin,?Stanley?D.?Saltzman,?Morris,?Polich?&?Purdy,?Jeffrey?S.?Barron,?Robert?S.?Wolfe,?Anthony?G.?Brazil,?Douglas?J.?Collodel,?Michael?S.?Wildermuth,?Donald?L.?Ridge,?Adams,?Duque?&?Hazeltine,?Richard?T.?Davis,?Jr.,?Jeffrey?P.?Smith,?Berna?Warner-Fredman,?F.?Christopher?Chrisbens,?Pillsbury,?Madison?&?Sutro,?C.?Douglas?Floyd,?F.?John?Nyhan,?Anthony?R.?Delling,?Susan?A.?Kerans,?Gerber?&?Donaldes,?Harvey?R.?Gerber,?Berchin?&?Berchin,?Eugene?C.?Berchin?and?Jerome?J.?Berchin?for?Real?Parties?in?Interest.

Horvitz?&?Levy,?Barry?R.?Levy,?Christina?J.?Imre,?Fred?Main,?Catherine?I.?Hansen,?Fred?J.?Hiestand?and?Richard?Denhalter,?City?Attorney?(Santa?Clara),?as?Amici?Curiae?on?behalf?of?Real?Parties?in?Interest.

OPINION

BAXTER,?J.

We?are?asked?to?decide?whether?persons?other?than?those?who?contract?for?the?services?of?mortuaries?and?crematoria?or?have?the?statutory?right?to?direct?the?disposition?of?the?body?of?a?decedent?may?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress?engendered?by?knowledge?of?the?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?the?decedent’s?remains?when?they?did?not?observe?the?misconduct?or?its?consequences.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?those?family?members?may?recover?damages?for?the?emotional?distress?they?suffer?if?remains?are?negligently?or?intentionally?mishandled,?and?that?if?the?mishandling?is?intentional?all?family?members?and?close?friends?of?the?deceased?may?do?so.

We?agree?that?the?class?of?persons?who?may?recover?for?emotional?distress?negligently?caused?by?the?defendants?is?not?limited?to?those?who?have?the?statutory?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?remains?and?those?who?contract?for?disposition.?The?class?is?not,?however,?as?expansive?as?that?identified?by?the?Court?of?Appeal.?As?in?all?recovery?for?negligence,?the?potential?plaintiff?must?be?a?person?to?whom?the?defendant?owes?a?duty?recognized?by?the?law.?In?this?context,?the?duty?is?owed?only?to?those?close?family?members?who?were?aware?that?funeral?and/or?crematory?services?were?being?performed,?and?on?whose?behalf?or?for?whose?benefit?the?services?were?rendered.

Therefore,?and?because?we?also?conclude?that?the?individual?plaintiffs?and?the?class?they?seek?to?represent?lack?standing?to?recover?on?an?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?theory,?the?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?must?be?modified.?[54?Cal.3d?876]

I

This?matter?arises?on?review?of?a?ruling?on?standing?to?sue?made?by?the?trial?court?in?a?coordination?proceeding.fn.?1?At?the?trial?court’s?request?the?parties?briefed?the?question?of?standing?based?on?the?allegations?of?a?designated?”model”?complaint,?selected?for?the?purpose?of?preliminary?rulings?from?those?filed?in?the?coordinated?actions.?The?Court?of?Appeal?treated?the?ruling?as?one?in?the?nature?of?a?ruling?on?a?demurrer,fn.?2?accepting?the?allegations?of?the?model?complaint?as?true?for?purposes?of?this?proceeding,?and?considering?whether?those?allegations?stated?a?cause?of?action?on?behalf?of?all?of?the?individual?plaintiffs,?and?the?class?the?individual?plaintiffs?sought?to?represent.fn.?3

In?response?to?plaintiffs’?petition?for?writ?of?mandate,?after?issuance?of?an?alternative?writ?the?Court?of?Appeal?directed?that?a?peremptory?writ?issue?to?compel?the?trial?court?to?modify?its?order?to?recognize?the?standing?of?additional?plaintiffs.

We?agree?with?the?Court?of?Appeal?that?the?ruling,?although?described?as?one?on?standing,?was?in?the?nature?of?a?ruling?on?a?demurrer?inasmuch?as?the?effect?was?to?determine?whether?all?of?the?plaintiffs?and?the?plaintiff?class?had?stated?a?cause?or?causes?of?action?for?which?each?could?recover?emotional?distress?damages.?We?address?the?issues?as?having?been?raised?in?that?context.

The?model?complaint?defined?the?plaintiff?class?as?one?consisting?of?surviving?spouses,?relatives,?and?designated?representatives?of?decedents?whose?remains?had?been?mishandled?by?defendants.?The?individual?plaintiffs?who?seek?to?represent?the?class?are?persons?within?the?class?who?have?the?right?and?responsibility?for?handling,?and?the?right?to?custody?and?possession?of?their?decedents’?remains,?and?possess?or?may?acquire?the?right?under?section?7100?of?the?Health?and?Safety?Codefn.?4?to?control?disposition?of?the?[54?Cal.3d?877]?remains,?and/or?contracted?for?defendants’?services,?paid?for?the?services,?or?represent?the?estates?of?persons?who?did?so.fn.?5

All?of?the?individual?plaintiffs?and?members?of?the?plaintiff?class?as?described?in?the?model?complaint?are,?therefore,?contracting?parties?and/or?relatives?of?decedents?whose?remains?were?allegedly?mishandled.fn.?6

The?defendants?fall?into?two?principal?classes?designated?by?plaintiffs?as?the?”mortuary”?defendants?and?the?”crematory”?defendants.?The?mortuary?defendants?allegedly?undertook?to,?contracted?to,?and?agreed?to?provide?funeral-related?services?for?the?benefit?of?plaintiffs,?and?to?accomplish?the?cremation?of?the?remains?of?plaintiffs’?decedents?”with?the?dignity?and?respect?due?them?in?accordance?with?Plaintiffs’?and?decedents’?wishes,?in?keeping?with?public?sensibilities,?and?in?accordance?with?the?law.”?The?mortuary?defendants?contracted?with?the?crematory?defendants?for?cremation?of?the?remains.

The?crematory?defendants,?which?represented?that?they?would?perform?cremations?in?a?dignified?and?respectful?manner,?provided?forms?authorizing?[54?Cal.3d?878]?cremation?to?the?mortuary?defendants?to?enable?the?latter?to?obtain?consent?from?the?next?of?kin?whose?business?the?mortuary?defendants?solicited?on?behalf?of?both?themselves?and?the?crematory?defendants.

The?mortuary?defendants?knew,?or?should?have?known,?of?the?illegal?and?improper?practices?of?the?crematory?defendants.

The?remaining?defendants,?Carolina?Biological?Supply?Company?and?its?agent?William?G.?Gabriel,?residents?of?North?Carolina?(collectively,?the?Carolina?defendants),?allegedly?requested?and?purchased?human?organs?and?body?parts?from?the?crematory?defendants.?The?Carolina?defendants?failed?to?seek?review?of?an?earlier?order?of?the?trial?court?overruling?their?demurrer,?and?did?not?seek?review?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?ruling?on?the?standing?of?a?subclass?of?plaintiffs?who?seek?recovery?from?the?Carolina?defendants.?In?that?ruling,?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?only?the?statutory?right?holders?may?recover?from?the?Carolina?defendants?that,?allegedly,?purchased?bodily?organs?and?parts?taken?from?plaintiffs’?decedents?by?the?crematory?defendants,?and?did?so?under?circumstances?in?which?the?Carolina?defendants?knew?or?should?have?known?that?desecration?of?human?remains?would?necessarily?occur.fn.?7

The?PFAC?seeks?relief?against?members?of?each?class?directly?and?for?the?acts?of?others?on?theories?of?agency?and?conspiracy.?The?events?about?which?plaintiffs?complain?occurred?in?the?period?1980-1987,?but?were?not?discovered?by?plaintiffs?until?February?1987,?when?plaintiffs?first?learned?”from?public?media?reports”?that?their?decedents’?remains?had?been?mishandled?in?the?manner?alleged?in?the?complaint.

The?model?complaint?alleged?that?the?crematory?defendants?mishandled?and?mutilated?remains,?commingled?human?remains,?and?violated?sections?7051,?7052,?7054.7,?and?7055,?as?well?as?Business?and?Professions?Code?section?7735,?and?Penal?Code?section?487.1.?[54?Cal.3d?879]

More?specifically,?in?support?of?this?allegation?and?one?charging?that?those?defendants?had?”removed?and?’harvested,’?without?authorization?or?permission,?numerous?human?organs?and?body?parts?from?plaintiffs’?decedents’?remains,”?the?complaint?alleged?that?defendants?cremated?remains?in?the?pottery?kiln?of?defendant?Oscar?Ceramics;?cremated?remains?in?a?disrespectful?manner;?cremated?as?many?as?10?to?15?bodies?together?at?the?pottery?kiln?and?multiple?bodies?at?other?locations;?took?and?sold?gold?and?other?metals?from?the?remains;?placed?cremated?remains?in?urns?or?other?containers?without?preserving?their?integrity?or?identity;?and?mutilated?decedents’?remains?”including,?but?not?limited?to?the?unauthorized?taking?of?Plaintiffs’?decedents’?corneas,?eyes,?hearts,?lungs?and?other?organs,?and?bones?and?body?parts,?which?were?sold?for?Defendants’?profit?….”

The?mortuary?defendants,?who?had?agreed?to?provide?funeral-related?services?and?accomplish?cremation?of?the?remains?for?the?benefit?of?plaintiffs,?had?contracted?with?the?crematory?defendants?for?services?in?circumstances?in?which?they?knew?or?should?have?known?that?this?conduct?was?occurring?or?would?occur.

On?discovering?defendants’?misconduct?plaintiffs?suffered?and?will?continue?to?suffer?”physical?injury,?shock,?outrage,?extreme?anxiety,?worry,?mortification,?embarrassment,?humiliation,?distress,?grief,?and?sorrow.”

The?ninth?cause?of?action,?identified?as?one?for?”Intentional?Interference?with?Remains?and?Infliction?of?Emotional?Distress,”?alleged?that?the?crematory?and?mortuary?defendants?had?wilfully?and?deliberately?interfered?with?the?rights?and?duties?of?the?plaintiffs?to?effect?the?proper?cremation?of?the?remains?”by?mutilating?the?remains?by?’harvesting’?of?organs?and?body?parts,?by?performing?multiple?cremations,?by?commingling?decedents’?cremated?remains?with?other?cremated?remains,?and?with?nonhuman?residue,?and?by?unceremoniously?and?disrespectfully?handling?Plaintiff’s?decedents’?remains,?rather?than?by?separately,?respectfully,?and?with?dignity,?mishandling?the?cremated?remains?….”?As?a?result?plaintiffs?allegedly?suffered?injury?like?that?described?above.

The?10th?cause?of?action,?identified?as?one?for?”Negligent?Interference?with?Remains?and?Infliction?of?Emotional?Distress,”?alleged?the?same?improper?conduct?and?injury?caused?by?defendants’?negligent,?reckless?and?careless?interference?with?the?plaintiffs’?statutory?rights?and?responsibilities?to?dispose?of?the?remains?of?their?decedents.?This?count?also?alleged?that?defendants?had?cremated,?handled,?and?treated?their?decedents’?remains?in?[54?Cal.3d?880]?ways?unauthorized?by?plaintiffs?and?their?decedents,?which?were?contrary?to?their?wishes,?requests,?and?beliefs.?Such?negligent?interference?was?accomplished?through?the?common?course?and?practice?of?unauthorized?mutilation,?improper?cremation?and?commingling?of?remains.?Negligent?entrustment?of?the?remains?to?persons?unqualified?to?handle?them?was?also?alleged.fn.?8

Citing?Cohen?v.?Groman?Mortuary,?Inc.?(1964)?231?Cal.App.2d?1?[41?Cal.Rptr.?481],?and?Sinai?Temple?v.?Kaplan?(1976)?54?Cal.App.3d?1103?[127?Cal.Rptr.?80],?as?controlling,?the?trial?court?ruled?that?only?those?plaintiffs?who?were?entitled?by?section?7100?to?control?the?disposition?of?their?decedents’?remains?as?of?the?date?of?the?decedents’?death,?or?who?actually?contracted?for?disposition,?had?standing?to?assert?the?claims?set?forth?in?the?model?complaint.

II

Section?7100?establishes?rights?and?duties?in?the?disposition?of?human?remains,?providing:

“The?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?the?remains?of?a?deceased?person,?unless?other?directions?have?been?given?by?the?decedent,?vests?in,?and?the?duty?of?interment?and?the?liability?for?the?reasonable?cost?of?interment?of?such?remains?devolves?upon?the?following?in?the?order?named:

“(a)?The?surviving?spouse.

“(b)?The?surviving?child?or?children?of?the?decedent.

“(c)?The?surviving?parent?or?parents?of?the?decedent.

“(d)?The?person?or?persons?respectively?in?the?next?degrees?of?kindred?in?the?order?named?by?the?laws?of?California?as?entitled?to?succeed?to?the?estate?of?the?decedent.?[54?Cal.3d?881]

“(e)?The?public?administrator?when?the?deceased?has?sufficient?assets.

“?*?*?*?”

Other?statutory?provisions?relied?on?by?plaintiffs?and/or?relevant?to?the?claims?made?by?plaintiffs?include?the?following:

The?person?who?has?the?section?7100?duty?of?interment?is?entitled?to?custody?of?the?remains?for?that?purpose,?or?if?the?remains?are?cremated?for?burial?at?sea.?(??7102.)fn.?9

Pursuant?to?the?version?of?the?Uniform?Anatomical?Gift?Act?(??7150?et?seq.)?in?effect?when?this?case?arose,?an?individual?had?the?primary?right?to?make,?permit,?or?refuse?to?permit?the?making?of?an?anatomical?gift.?(Former???7151.?See?now???7150.5.)?It?was?and?is?a?felony?to?remove?any?part?of?any?human?remains?from?the?place?deposited?while?awaiting?interment?with?the?intent?to?sell?it,?unless?written?permission?is?given?by?the?person?who?holds?the?section?7100?right.?(??7051.?See?also?Pen.?Code,???367f.)fn.?10

Section?7054.7?prohibits?multiple?cremation?of?remains?and?commingling?of?remains?without?the?written?permission?of?the?section?7100?right?holder,?making?violation?of?its?provisions?a?misdemeanor.?Section?7055?makes?it?a?misdemeanor?to?remove?remains?from?one?primary?registration?district?to?another,?except?in?a?funeral?director’s?conveyance,?without?a?permit?by?the?local?registrar.

III

Before?considering?the?causes?of?action?for?negligent?and?intentional?interference?with?remains,?the?Court?of?Appeal?addressed?the?plaintiffs’?[54?Cal.3d?882]?standing?to?seek?recovery?on?a?theory?that?plaintiffs,?or?some?of?them,?were?third?party?beneficiaries?of?a?contract?for?mortuary?services.?It?concluded?that?a?section?7100?right?holder?is?the?only?express?beneficiary?of?a?contract?for?mortuary?services,?and?that?if?the?contracting?party?was?not?the?section?7100?right?holder,?only?the?holder?of?that?right?may?be?seen?as?an?intended?beneficiary?of?the?contract.fn.?11The?section?7100?right?did?devolve?according?to?the?statutory?scheme,?however,?if?the?holder?at?the?date?of?the?death?of?the?decedent?himself?or?herself?died.

After?considering?this?court’s?recent?decisions?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?644?[257?Cal.Rptr.?865,?771?P.2d?814],?and?Marlene?F.?v.?Affiliated?Psychiatric?Medical?Clinic,?Inc.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?583?[257?Cal.Rptr.?98,?770?P.2d?278],?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?none?of?the?plaintiffs?could?recover?on?either?a?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress?or?an?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?theory.?The?court?also?held,?however,?that?the?allegations?of?the?complaint?stated?a?cause?of?action?for?negligent?mishandling?of?a?corpse,?as?recognized?in?Quesada?v.?Oak?Hill?Improvement?Co.?(1989)?213?Cal.App.3d?596?[261?Cal.Rptr.?769],?for?which?the?close?family?members?described?in?Thing?and?grandchildren?may?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress.fn.?12?A?broader?class,?all?family?members?and?close?friends,?could?recover?for?emotional?distress?suffered?as?a?result?of?the?intentional?mishandling?of?remains.

In?reaching?these?conclusions,?the?Court?of?Appeal?applied?well-settled?principles?governing?the?tort?of?negligence.?The?court?recognized,?as?had?this?court?in?Marlene?F.?v.?Affiliated?Psychiatric?Medical?Clinic,?Inc.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?583,?588,?that?when?damages?are?sought?for?negligently?inflicted?emotional?distress,?the?tort?is?negligence?regardless?of?the?specific?name?that?may?be?used?to?describe?the?tort,?and?that?the?elements?of?duty,?breach?of?duty,?causation?and?damages?must?be?pleaded?and?proven.

The?court?reasoned?that?when?a?mortuary?agrees?to?care?for?the?remains?of?a?decedent,?a?special?relationship?is?created?between?the?mortuary?and?the?close?family?members?of?the?decedent?by?virtue?of?the?nature?of?the?services?the?mortuary?undertakes?to?perform.?The?mortuary’s?duty?to?properly?discharge?[54?Cal.3d?883]?its?responsibility?of?caring?for?the?decedent?runs?to?all?persons?with?whom?it?has?that?special?relationship,?not?just?to?the?person?who?actually?contracts?for?the?services.?It?is?foreseeable?that?a?breach?of?that?duty?may?cause?severe?emotional?distress?to?members?of?the?bereaved?family.fn.?13

In?recognizing?a?broader?class?of?persons?entitled?to?recover?for?intentional?mishandling?of?a?corpse,?the?Court?of?Appeal?relied?on?language?in?Amaya?v.?Home?Ice,?Fuel?&?Supply?Co.?(1963)59?Cal.2d?295,?315?[29?Cal.Rptr.?33,?379?P.2d?513],?quoted?with?approval?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?652-653,?which?distinguished?the?culpability?and?liability?of?intentional?tortfeasors?from?that?of?those?who?are?merely?negligent:

“[T]he?increased?liability?imposed?on?an?intentional?wrongdoer?appears?to?reflect?the?psychological?fact?that?solicitude?for?the?interests?of?the?actor?weighs?less?in?the?balance?as?his?[or?her]?moral?guilt?increases?and?the?social?utility?of?his?[or?her]?conduct?diminishes.”

The?Court?of?Appeal?also?reasoned,?based?on?statements?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?that?when?an?intentional?tort?is?alleged,?and?society?seeks?to?both?punish?the?wrongdoer?and?deter?such?conduct?by?others,?the?imposition?of?liability?out?of?all?proportion?to?a?defendant’s?negligence?is?not?a?concern.?Therefore?it?is?not?necessary?to?limit?liability?to?as?narrow?a?class?as?is?the?case?when?negligence?is?the?cause?of?the?injury.?For?that?reason,?no?arbitrary?limitation?of?recovery?to?persons?in?a?close?family?relationship?with?the?decedent?was?required?when?the?defendant?had?intentionally?mishandled?a?corpse.?Close?friends?of?the?decedent?need?not?be?denied?the?right?to?recover.

IV?Negligence

  1. Standing.

[1a]?Defendants?contend?that?the?right?to?recover?for?emotional?distress?caused?by?the?mishandling?of?human?remains?should?be?limited?to?those?members?of?the?decedent’s?family?who?actually?witness?the?negligent?conduct.?In?order?to?avoid?the?creation?of?limitless?liability?out?of?proportion?to?a?defendant’s?fault?the?line?should?be?drawn,?as?it?was?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?[54?Cal.3d?884]?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?so?as?to?restrict?recovery?to?those?persons?who?are?able?to?establish?a?direct?causal?link?between?perception?of?the?misconduct?and?the?emotional?distress?they?suffer.?The?Court?of?Appeal,?they?argue,?has?erroneously?recognized?a?new?tort-mishandling?human?remains-which?is?not?so?limited.

It?is?true,?as?defendants?observe,?that?the?tort?with?which?we?are?concerned?is?negligence.?[2]?Negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress?is?not?an?independent?tort?(Marlene?F.?v.?Affiliated?Psychiatric?Medical?Clinic,?Inc.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?583,?588),?nor?is?negligent?mishandling?of?human?remains.fn.?14?Those?names?are,?however,?convenient?terminology?descriptive?of?the?context?in?which?the?negligent?conduct?occurred.?Nonetheless,?recognition?that?the?theory?on?which?recovery?is?sought?is?negligence?does?not?mean?that?the?principles?which?governed?our?decision?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?compel?a?similar?result?here.

Thing?and?Dillon?v.?Legg?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?728?[69?Cal.Rptr.?72,?441?P.2d?912,?29?A.L.R.3d?1316],?addressed?the?question?of?duty?in?circumstances?in?which?a?plaintiff?seeks?to?recover?damages?as?a?percipient?witness?to?the?injury?of?another.?”[T]he?Dillon?principles?represent?but?the?means?for?resolving?the?duty?question?in?the?specific?factual?context?of?the?’bystander?witness’?scenario?….”?(Marlene?F.?v.?Affiliated?Psychiatric?Medical?Clinic,?Inc.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?583,?589,?fn.?4.)?Moreover,?the?line?of?negligence?decisions?commencing?with?Dillon?and?culminating?in?Thing?all?arise?in?the?context?of?physical?injury?or?emotional?distress?caused?by?the?negligent?conduct?of?a?defendant?with?whom?the?plaintiff?had?no?preexisting?relationship,?and?to?whom?the?defendant?had?not?previously?assumed?a?duty?of?care?beyond?that?owed?to?the?public?in?general.?The?plaintiffs?had?not?themselves?been?threatened?with?physical?injury?and?their?emotional?distress?did?not?arise?out?of?fear?for?their?own?safety.?They?sought?to?recover?for?emotional?distress?suffered?as?a?result?of?observing?the?negligently?caused?injury?of?another.?It?was?foreseeable?that?such?persons?would?suffer?emotional?distress,?but?because?it?was?foreseeable?that?any?person?who?observed?the?injury-producing?event?would?suffer?some?emotional?distress?and?the?[54?Cal.3d?885]?class?of?potential?plaintiffs?was?limitless,?the?court?undertook?to?define?and?circumscribe?the?class?to?whom?the?defendant?owed?a?duty.?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?652;?Dillon?v.?Legg,?supra,?68?Cal.2d?728,?733-735.)

[3]?In?determining?liability?for?negligence,?we?begin?always?with?the?command?of?Civil?Code?section?1714,?subdivision?(a):?”Everyone?is?responsible,?not?only?for?the?result?of?his?willful?acts,?but?also?for?an?injury?occasioned?to?another?by?his?want?of?ordinary?care?or?skill?in?the?management?of?his?property?or?person,?except?so?far?as?the?latter?has,?willfully?or?by?want?of?ordinary?care,?brought?the?injury?upon?himself.”?In?the?absence?of?a?statutory?provision?limiting?this?rule,?exceptions?to?the?general?principle?imposing?liability?for?negligence?are?recognized?only?when?clearly?supported?by?public?policy.?(Rowland?v.?Christian?(1968)?69?Cal.2d?108,?112?[70?Cal.Rptr.?97,?443?P.2d?561,?32?A.L.R.3d?496.)?Amaya,?Dillon,?and?Thing?reflect?a?public?policy?exception?which?limits?the?right?of?a?bystander?who?did?not?suffer?physical?injury?and?was?not?threatened?with?such?injury?to?recover?damages?for?the?emotional?distress?he?suffered?as?a?result?of?witnessing?negligent?conduct?which?caused?physical?injury?to?a?third?person.?If?any?and?all?bystanders?who?witnessed?the?injury-causing?event?were?permitted?to?recover?for?ensuing?emotional?distress,?the?defendant’s?liability?could?be?out?of?all?proportion?to?the?degree?of?fault.?(Molien?v.?Kaiser?Foundation?Hospitals?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?916,?922-?923?[167?Cal.Rptr.?831,?616?P.2d?813,?16?A.L.R.4th?518];?Amaya?v.?Home?Ice,?Fuel?&?Supply?Co.,?supra,?59?Cal.2d?295,?315.)?Public?policy?therefore?justified?a?limitation?on?the?statutory?right?to?recover?damages?for?the?emotional?distress?injury.

We?agree?with?defendants?that?public?policy?considerations?are?relevant?in?determining?whether?a?particular?plaintiff?may?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress.?This?is?true,?however,?whenever?a?plaintiff?asserts?that?the?negligent?conduct?of?another?breached?a?duty?owed?to?the?plaintiff.?[4]?”The?existence?of?duty?is?a?question?of?law.?(Richards?v.?Stanley?(1954)?43?Cal.2d?60,?66-67?[271?P.2d?23].)?'[L]egal?duties?are?not?discoverable?facts?of?nature,?but?merely?conclusory?expressions?that,?in?cases?of?a?particular?type,?liability?should?be?imposed?for?damage?done.’?(Tarasoff?v.?Regents?of?University?of?California?(1976)?17?Cal.3d?425,?434?[131?Cal.Rptr.?14,?551?P.2d?334,?83?A.L.R.3d?1166].)

“It?is?a?fundamental?proposition?of?tort?law?that?one?is?liable?for?injuries?caused?by?a?failure?to?exercise?reasonable?care.?We?have?said,?however,?that?in?considering?the?existence?of?’duty’?in?a?given?case?several?factors?require?consideration?including?’the?foreseeability?of?harm?to?the?plaintiff,?the?degree?of?certainty?that?plaintiff?suffered?injury,?the?closeness?of?the?connection?between?the?defendant’s?conduct?and?the?injury?suffered,?the?moral?[54?Cal.3d?886]?blame?attached?to?the?defendant’s?conduct,?the?policy?of?preventing?future?harm,?the?extent?of?the?burden?to?the?defendant?and?consequences?to?the?community?of?imposing?a?duty?to?exercise?care?with?resulting?liability?for?breach,?and?the?availability,?cost,?and?prevalence?of?insurance?for?the?risk?involved.”?(Thompson?v.?County?of?Alameda?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?741,?750?[167?Cal.Rptr.?70,?614?P.2d?728,?12?A.L.R.4th?701].)

[1b]?Application?of?these?principles?does?not?compel?a?conclusion?that?the?limitations?deemed?appropriate?in?Dillon?v.?Legg,?supra,?and?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?to?limit?recovery?by?bystanders?should?apply?in?other?situations,?and?particularly?in?that?presented?here.

The?unique?context?in?which?this?dispute?arises?is?relevant?to?its?resolution.?The?model?complaint?alleges?that?the?mortuary?and?crematory?defendants?undertook?not?simply?to?provide?an?expeditious?disposal?of?the?remains?of?plaintiffs’?decedents?as?a?means?by?which?the?holders?of?the?statutory?rights?or?the?contracting?party?could?fulfill?an?obligation?imposed?by?the?state.?Rather,?the?mortuary?defendants?undertook?to?provide?appropriate?and?dignified?services?of?the?type?that?bereaved?family?members?normally?anticipate.?Those?services?are?not?limited?to?the?conduct?of,?or?facilitating?the?conduct?of,?ceremonial?or?funeral?rites,?but?extend?through?arranging?the?commitment?of?the?remains?through?burial?or?encryptment,?or?alternatively?cremation?and?inurnment?or?other?disposition?of?the?ashes?of?the?decedent?for?whose?family?the?services?were?performed.fn.?15?(American?Funeral?Concepts?v.?Board?of?Funeral?Directors?&?Embalmers?(1982)?136?Cal.App.3d?303,?306?[186?Cal.Rptr.?196]?[“Funeral?services”?include?”burial?or?cremation.”].)

Moreover,?the?relationship?between?the?family?of?a?decedent?and?a?provider?of?funeral-related?services?exists?in?major?part?for?the?purpose?of?relieving?the?bereaved?relatives?of?the?obligation?to?personally?prepare?the?remains?for?burial?or?cremation.?The?responsibility?is?delegated?to?others?because?family?members?do?not?want?to?undertake?or?witness?those?preparations.?[54?Cal.3d?887]?Therefore,?it?would?be?the?exceptional?case?in?which?any?family?member?would?observe?misconduct?of?the?type?alleged?in?the?complaint.?In?arguing?that?the?right?of?persons?who?do?not?witness?the?misconduct?or?its?consequences?to?recover?for?emotional?distress?be?limited?to?the?statutory?right?holder?or?contracting?party,?defendants?and?the?concurring?and?dissenting?opinion?of?Justice?Kennard?invite?this?court?to?create?an?immunity?protecting?them?from?liability?for?the?serious?emotional?distress?caused?by?such?egregious,?but?clandestine,?misconduct.?This?we?decline?to?do.?Were?this?approach?adopted,?the?persons?suffering?the?greatest?harm?might?well?be?barred?from?recovering?for?their?emotional?distress?while?one?much?less?affected?would?be?permitted?to?recover.

It?is?apparent?that?the?identity?of?the?individual?who?actually?contracts?for?mortuary?or?crematory?services?or?holds?the?statutory?right?to?dispose?of?the?remains?of?a?decedent?is?incidental,?and?is?not?a?reliable?indicator?of?the?family?members?who?may?suffer?the?greatest?emotional?distress?if?the?decedent’s?remains?are?mishandled.?One?of?several?children?of?the?decedent?may?arrange?for?the?services?on?behalf?of?all?siblings,?as?well?as?a?surviving?spouse?or?parent?of?the?decedent.?If?so,?the?crematory?or?mortuary?assumes?a?duty?to?all?of?these?family?members.?There?is?no?reason?to?assume?that?the?person?who?makes?the?arrangements?is?any?more?susceptible?to?emotional?distress?if?the?services?are?not?competently?performed?than?are?the?other?family?members.?Indeed,?in?light?of?the?emotional?impact?of?the?death?of?a?close?family?member?of?the?bereaved,?it?may?be?the?relative?least?affected?who?is?chosen?by?the?family?to?represent?them?in?arranging?for?funeral?and?related?services.fn.?16

Contrary?to?the?view?of?Justice?Kennard,?the?services?for?which?the?statutory?right?holder?or?the?family?member?contracts?are?rarely?performed?for?the?benefit?of?the?contracting?party?alone.?Recognition?that?mortuary?services?are?performed?for?the?benefit?of?family?members?other?than?the?contracting?party?or?holder?of?the?statutory?right?is?apparent?in?both?past?California?decisions?and?those?of?other?jurisdictions,?as?well?as?in?the?legal?literature.fn.?17?[5]?”Once?a?mortuary?…?undertakes?to?accept?the?care,?[54?Cal.3d?888]?custody?and?control?of?the?remains,?a?duty?of?care?must?be?found?running?to?the?members?of?decedent’s?bereaved?family.”?(Draper?Mortuary?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?135?Cal.App.3d?533,?538?[185?Cal.Rptr.?396].)?The?Draper?court,?like?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?the?instant?case,?recognized?that?by?undertaking?to?provide?mortuary?services,?the?defendant?had?created?a?relationship?between?itself?and?the?family?of?the?decedent?by?virtue?of?which?an?affirmative?duty?arose?to?avoid?harm?to?the?family?members.?(135?Cal.App.3d?at?pp.?537-538.)

The?Court?of?Appeal?reached?a?similar?conclusion?in?Quesada?v.?Oak?Hill?Improvement?Co.,?supra,?213?Cal.App.3d?596,?holding?expressly?that?a?sister?and?niece?of?the?decedent?who?had?not?contracted?for?funeral?services?could?recover?for?the?emotional?distress?they?suffered?as?a?result?of?the?defendant?mortuary’s?negligence?in?the?handling?of?the?corpse?of?their?decedent.?There,?as?a?result?of?defendants’?negligence,?the?body?of?another?person?was?prepared?and?buried?notwithstanding?the?protestations?of?family?members?that?the?body?was?that?of?a?stranger.?The?Court?of?Appeal?recognized?that?the?plaintiffs?did?not?seek?damages?on?a?Dillon?bystander-witness?theory,?but?claimed?to?be?foreseeable?direct?victims?of?the?defendants’?negligence.?The?duty?identified?by?the?court?was?the?duty?of?a?mortuary?to?the?close?relatives?of?a?decedent?to?properly?handle?the?corpse.?The?duty?existed?because?it?was?clearly?foreseeable?that?defendants’?conduct?might?cause?severe?mental?trauma?to?persons?having?a?close?relationship?with?the?deceased.

Defendants?rely,?however,?on?Cohen?v.?Groman?Mortuary,?Inc.,?supra,?231?Cal.App.2d?1,?and?Sinai?Temple?v.?Kaplan,?supra,?54?Cal.App.3d?1103,?which?the?Quesada?court?distinguished?or?declined?to?follow.?In?Cohen?v.?Groman?Mortuary,?Inc.,?supra?(hereafter?Cohen),?the?plaintiffs?were?the?mother,?two?minor?children,?husband,?married?daughter,?aunt,?two?brothers?and?a?sister?of?the?decedent.?One?brother?and?the?sister?arranged?for?the?funeral?service,?during?which?the?defendant?mortuary?negligently?substituted?the?body?of?another?for?plaintiffs’?decedent.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?if?the?gravamen?[54?Cal.3d?889]?of?the?complaint?is?based?on?a?contractual?duty,?the?duty?does?not?extend?to?family?members?other?than?the?contracting?party.?The?court?also?held?that?if?the?action?was?one?in?negligence,?the?defendant?mortuary?had?not?breached?its?duty?to?those?plaintiffs?who?were?not?the?holders?of?the?statutory?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?body.

The?Cohen?court?(supra,?231?Cal.App.2d?1)?based?its?decision?on?the?failure?of?the?plaintiffs?to?define?a?duty?running?to?them?or?to?describe?a?right?on?which?their?action?was?predicated.?Relying?in?part?on?Amaya?v.?Home?Ice,?Fuel?&?Supply?Co.,?supra,?59?Cal.2d?295,?which?this?court?subsequently?overruled?(in?Dillon?v.?Legg,?supra,?68?Cal.2d?728),?the?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?there?was?no?right?to?recover?for?emotional?distress?suffered?as?a?result?of?negligent?conduct?directed?at?another?person.?The?court?did?not?undertake?an?independent?analysis?of?the?nature?of?mortuary?services?or?consider?whether?they?are?performed?for?the?benefit?of?persons?other?than?the?contracting?party?or?persons?expressly?identified?as?intended?beneficiaries?of?the?contract.

Cohen,?supra,?231?Cal.App.2d?1,?reflects?an?approach?recognized?in?the?Restatement?Second?of?Torts,?section?868,?that?liability?for?interference?with?dead?bodies?runs?to?the?family?member?having?the?right?to?dispose?of?the?remains.?However,?the?statement?of?the?rule?is?accompanied?by?a?caveat?that?the?authoring?American?Law?Institute?took?no?position?on?liability?to?other?family?members,?and?is?accompanied?by?a?comment?noting?that?at?that?time?the?”technical?basis?of?the?cause?of?action?[was]?the?interference?with?the?exclusive?right?of?control?of?the?body?….?In?practice?the?technical?right?has?served?as?a?mere?peg?upon?which?to?hang?damages?for?the?mental?distress?inflicted?upon?the?survivor.”?(Rest.2d?Torts,???868,?com.?a.)fn.?18?[1c]?Both?the?original?Restatement?position?and?Cohen?are?now?inconsistent?with?more?recent?authority.?Section?868?of?the?Restatement?was?changed?after?the?Cohen?decision.?It?now?addresses?liability?for?negligent?and?reckless,?as?well?as?intentional,?conduct?and?no?longer?limits?recovery?to?family?members.?(Rest.2d?Torts?(appen.)???868,?reporter’s?notes,?p.?75.)?To?the?extent?that?Cohen?conflicts?with?our?decision?here,?it?is?disapproved.?[54?Cal.3d?890]

Sinai?Temple?v.?Kaplan,?supra,?54?Cal.App.3d?1103,?on?which?the?trial?court?relied?in?part,?involved?a?different?question,?and?does?not?support?defendants.?The?issue?was?only?whether?the?statutory?right?holder?could?state?a?cause?of?action?against?a?person?who?usurped?that?right.?The?minor?daughter?of?decedent?sought?damages?from?the?father?of?the?decedent,?her?grandfather,?who?had?contracted?for?funeral?and?burial?services,?for?an?alleged?interference?with?her?statutory?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?the?decedent’s?remains.?(??7100.)

The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?an?action?would?lie?against?a?close?relative,?as?well?as?a?mortician?or?cemetery,?for?tortious?interference?with?the?statutory?right?to?dispose?of?a?decedent’s?remains,?and?that?improper?burial?procedures?which?were?contrary?to?the?beliefs?of?the?statutory?right?holder?would?constitute?interference?with?that?person’s?rights.?(Sinai?Temple?v.?Kaplan,?supra,?54?Cal.App.3d?at?p.?1112.)?That?holding?was?not?remarkable.?”[T]he?next?of?kin,?while?not?in?the?full?proprietary?sense?’owning’?the?body?of?the?deceased,?have?property?rights?in?the?body?which?will?be?protected,?and?for?a?violation?of?which?they?are?entitled?to?indemnification.”?(O’Donnell?v.?Slack?(1899)?123?Cal.?285,?289?[55?P.?906].)

The?question?of?recovery?for?negligence?in?the?performance?of?funeral?and?related?services?did?not?arise?in?Sinai?Temple?v.?Kaplan,?supra,?54?Cal.3d?1103.?The?daughter’s?cross-complaint?did?not?allege?facts?to?suggest?that?defendants?had?mishandled?the?corpse?or?that?the?daughter?had?suffered?any?injury?as?a?result?of?the?manner?in?which?the?cross-defendants?had?performed?the?funeral?and?related?services.?The?rights?of?other?relatives?to?seek?damages?for?negligence?in?the?performance?of?funeral?and?related?services?was?not?before?the?court.

When?misconduct?in?the?provision?of?funeral-related?services?occurs?in?secret?and?its?consequences?are?not?apparent?to?members?of?the?decedent’s?family,?permitting?recovery?for?the?emotional?distress?suffered?by?all?close?family?members?for?whom?mortuary?services?are?performed?when?the?misconduct?comes?to?light,?regardless?of?which?family?member?held?the?statutory?right?or?actually?contracted?for?the?services,?should?be?allowed.?Recognition?of?their?cause?of?action?is?fully?consistent?with?the?contemporary?principles?discussed?above?by?which?the?existence?of?a?duty?to?avoid?harm?to?a?particular?plaintiff?is?determined.

We?recognized?in?Marlene?F.?v.?Affiliated?Psychiatric?Medical?Clinic,?Inc.,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?583,?590,?that?damages?for?severe?emotional?distress?may?be?recovered?”when?they?result?from?the?breach?of?a?duty?owed?the?plaintiff?that?is?assumed?by?the?defendant?or?imposed?on?the?defendant?as?a?matter?of?law,?or?that?arises?out?of?a?special?relationship?between?the?two.”?Defendants?[54?Cal.3d?891]?here?assumed?a?duty?to?the?close?relatives?of?the?decedents?for?whose?benefit?they?were?to?provide?funeral?and/or?related?services.?They?thereby?created?a?special?relationship?obligating?them?to?perform?those?services?in?the?dignified?and?respectful?manner?the?bereaved?expect?of?mortuary?and?crematory?operators.fn.?19?The?existence?of?this?duty?distinguishes?the?negligence?action?pleaded?here?from?those?of?the?bystander-witnesses?who?were?plaintiffs?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?and?Dillon?v.?Legg,?supra,?68?Cal.2d?728.fn.?20

[6]?Tort?recovery?for?breach?of?a?duty?arising?out?of?a?third?party?contract?is?also?consistent?with?well-established?California?precedent.?In?Biakanja?v.?Irving?(1958)?49?Cal.2d?647?[320?P.2d?16,?65?A.L.R.2d?1358],?this?court?held?that?a?notary?who?negligently?prepared?a?will?had?assumed?and?breached?a?duty?to?an?intended?beneficiary.?Notwithstanding?the?lack?of?privity,?recovery?of?damages?was?allowed.?”The?determination?whether?in?a?specific?case?the?defendant?will?be?held?liable?to?a?third?person?not?in?privity?is?a?matter?of?policy?and?involves?the?balancing?of?various?factors,?among?which?are?the?extent?to?which?the?transaction?was?intended?to?affect?the?plaintiff,?the?foreseeability?of?harm?to?him,?the?degree?of?certainty?that?the?plaintiff?suffered?injury,?the?closeness?of?the?connection?between?the?defendant’s?conduct?and?the?injury?suffered,?the?moral?blame?attached?to?the?defendant’s?conduct,?and?the?policy?of?preventing?future?harm.”?(Id.?at?p.?650.)?In?Biakanja?v.?Irving,?as?here,?a?benefit?to?the?plaintiff?was?the?purpose?of?the?contract?and?the?damage?was?foreseeable.?(See?also?J’Aire?Corp.?v.?Gregory?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?799,?804?[157?Cal.Rptr.?407,?598?P.2d?60].)

[7a]?Carolina?Biological?Supply?Company?(Carolina),?which?also?contends?that?the?Thing?v.?La?Chusa?and?Dillon?v.?Legg?limitations?should?apply,?argues?that?even?if?this?court?disagrees?with?that?claim,?the?statutory?right?holders?lack?standing?to?seek?damages?from?it?on?a?negligence?theory?because?no?special?relationship?existed?between?them.

We?agree?that?Carolina,?unlike?the?other?defendants,?did?not?assume?any?duty?related?to?the?delivery?of?funeral-related?services.?One?theory?on?which?it?is?sued,?however,?is?that?it?negligently?contracted?for?and?purchased?human?organs?from?the?crematory?defendants?under?circumstances?in?which?it?knew?[54?Cal.3d?892]?or?should?have?known?that?the?crematories?had?not?complied?with?the?laws?of?this?state,?which?prohibit?removal?and?sale?of?human?organs?absent?the?consent?of?the?decedent?or?the?statutory?right?holder.fn.?21?Plaintiffs?do?not?seek?to?impute?liability?to?Carolina?for?the?negligence?of?the?crematory?defendants,?but?to?hold?Carolina?liable?on?a?theory?that?it?encouraged?or?induced?the?unlawful?conduct?of?the?crematory?defendants.

Negligence?in?procuring?injury-producing?conduct?of?another?may?subject?the?negligent?actor?to?liability?for?that?conduct.?”A’s?own?wrong?may?have?contributed?in?some?way?to?the?causing?of?harm?to?C?though?B’s?wrongful?conduct.?A?may?have?commanded?or?procured?that?very?wrong.”?(5?Harper?et?al.,?The?Law?of?Torts?(2d?ed.?1986)???26.1,?p.?3.)?Where?a?defendant?has?induced?another?to?act?in?circumstances?under?which?it?is?foreseeable?that?the?conduct?will?cause?injury?to?a?third?party,?liability?is?found.

This?principle,?recognized?in?section?302A?of?the?Second?Restatement?of?Torts,fn.?22?underlies?the?decision?of?this?court?in?Pool?v.?City?of?Oakland?(1986)?42?Cal.3d?1051?[232?Cal.Rptr.?528,?728?P.2d?1163].?There?we?held?that?a?supermarket?which?negligently?accused?a?customer?of?felonious?conduct?and?summoned?police,?could?foresee?that?the?resulting?police?investigation?and?arrest?of?the?innocent?plaintiff?would?cause?emotional?distress?for?which?the?supermarket?was?liable.?While?the?police?conduct?may?have?been?wrongful,?the?defendant?was?a?proximate?cause?of?the?injury.?(Id.?at?pp.?1064,?1065.)?”If?the?likelihood?that?a?third?person?may?react?in?a?particular?manner?is?a?hazard?which?makes?the?actor?negligent,?such?reaction?whether?innocent?or?negligent?does?not?prevent?the?actor?from?being?liable?for?the?harm?caused?thereby.”?(Weirum?v.?RKO?General,?Inc.?(1975)?15?Cal.3d?40,?47?[123?Cal.Rptr.?468,?539?P.2d?36]?[duty?to?decedent?killed?in?auto?crash?established?by?foreseeability?that?inviting?members?of?radio?audience?to?be?first?to?arrive?at?location?would?encourage?reckless?driving].?See?also,?Ditez?v.?Illinois?Bell?Telephone?Co.?(1987)?154?Ill.?App.3d?544?[507?N.E.2d?24,?26]?[defendant?liable?for?trespass?if?defendant?knows?that?party?with?whom?defendant?contracts?will?enter?another’s?land?to?perform?contract?without?obtaining?required?consents];?Clark?v.?Library?of?Congress?(D.C.?Cir.?1984)?750?F.2d?89,?98?[242?App.D.C.?241]?[inducing?violation?of?plaintiff’s?civil?rights].)?[54?Cal.3d?893]

The?allegations?of?the?PFAC?may?also?allege,?or?might?be?amended?to?allege,?liability?on?a?joint?enterprise?theory.?[8]?The?joint?enterprise?theory,?while?rarely?invoked?outside?the?automobile?accident?context,?is?also?well?established?(see?Prosser?&?Keeton,?Torts?(5th?ed.?1984)???72,?p.?516-521)?and?recognized?in?this?state?as?an?exception?to?the?general?rule?that?imputed?liability?for?the?negligence?of?another?will?not?be?recognized.

“It?is?only?where?a?person?actually?acts?through?another?to?accomplish?his?own?ends?that?the?law?will?or?should?impose?such?vicarious?liability.?Right?of?control?over?the?other?person?is?a?test?of?the?required?relationship,?but?it?is?not?itself?the?justification?for?imposing?liability.?Aside?from?such?legal?relationships?as?master?and?servant,?principal?and?agent,?etc.,?before?the?courts?will?find?that?the?parties?were?joint?adventurers?there?must?be?clear?evidence?of?a?community?of?interest?in?a?common?undertaking?in?which?each?participant?has?or?exercises?the?right?of?equal?or?joint?control?and?direction.?[Citations.]?A?joint?venture?is?sort?of?a?mutual?agency,?akin?to?a?limited?partnership.?[Citations.]?It?is?not?sufficient?that?the?parties?have?certain?plans?in?common,?but?the?community?of?interest?must?be?such?that?[each]?is?entitled?to?be?heard?in?the?control?[of?the?enterprise].?[Citations.]?Most?of?the?cases?indicate?that?the?common?interest?must?be?of?some?business?nature.”?(Roberts?v.?Craig?(1954)?124?Cal.App.2d?202,?208?[268?P.2d?500,?43?A.L.R.2d?1146].?See?also,?King?v.?Ladyman?(1978)?81?Cal.App.3d?837,?842-843?[146?Cal.Rptr.?782];?DeSuza?v.?Andersack?(1976)?63?Cal.App.3d?694?[133?Cal.Rptr.?920].?See?also?6?Witkin,?Summary?of?Cal.?Law?(9th?ed.?1988)?Torts,???1008,?pp.?399-400.)

[7b]?We?cannot?say?that?it?was?not?reasonably?foreseeable?to?Carolina?that?its?conduct?in?offering?to?buy?substantial?quantities?of?human?organs?and?body?parts?from?the?crematory?defendants?would?induce?those?defendants?to?obtain?the?organs?and?body?parts?in?a?manner?that?would?cause?extreme?emotional?distress?to?the?section?7100?right?holders.?If,?under?the?circumstances,?Carolina?should?have?foreseen?that?the?crematory?defendants?would?violate?the?law,?then?its?conduct?may?be?found?to?be?negligent?per?se.

Section?7051?makes?the?unauthorized?removal?of?a?body?part?with?the?intent?to?sell?it?a?felony.?As?we?explain?below,?the?statutes?governing?the?disposition?of?human?remains?exist?not?only?to?ensure?removal?of?dead?bodies?and?protect?public?health,?but?also?to?prevent?invasion?of?the?religious,?moral,?and?esthetic?sensibilities?of?the?survivors.?These?laws?were?enacted?to?prevent?the?type?of?harm?alleged?here?to?the?statutory?rights?holders,?and?create?a?duty?to?those?persons.?(See?6?Witkin,?Summary?of?Cal.?Law,?Torts,?supra,????820,?833,?at?pp.?173,?189.)?Obtaining?the?consent?of?the?statutory?right?holder?to?the?removal?for?sale?of?body?organs?is?an?obligation?[54?Cal.3d?894]?imposed?by?law,?for?the?violation?of?which?a?civil?action?will?lie.?(Civ.?Code,????1427,?1428.)?No?contract?or?special?relationship?is?necessary?to?the?recognition?of?a?duty?to?prevent?the?harm?sought?to?be?avoided?by?the?statute.

Recognition?of?this?rule?is?so?well?established?that?the?common?law?doctrine?of?negligence?per?se,?of?which?it?is?a?part,?has?been?codified?in?California?as?a?rebuttable?presumption?of?negligence.?(Evid.?Code,???669.)fn.?23?Whether?Carolina?by?the?terms?of?its?contracts?induced?the?unlawful?conduct?of?the?crematory?defendants,?or?exercised?joint?control?over?the?manner?in?which?the?crematory?defendants?removed?organs?and?thus?was?engaged?in?a?joint?enterprise,?and?negligently?failed?to?ensure?that?it?was?purchasing?only?organs?removed?for?sale?pursuant?to?California?law,?and?thus?was?a?proximate?cause?of?the?emotional?distress?suffered?by?plaintiffs,?are?factual?questions?to?be?decided?in?later?proceedings.?We?hold?here?only?that?the?statutory?right?holders?have?standing?to?seek?damages?from?Carolina.

  1. Policy?Considerations?in?Recognition?of?Duty.

The?principles?which?guide?the?court?in?determining?whether?a?duty?exists?fully?support?our?conclusion?that?defendants?owed?a?duty?to?the?plaintiffs,?who?have?standing?in?this?case.

  1. Foreseeability?and?certainty?of?injury?in?funeral-related?services-mortuary?and?crematory?defendants.

The?mortuary?and?crematory?defendants?do?not?dispute?the?foreseeability?that?mishandling?human?remains?in?the?manner?alleged?in?the?model?complaint?is?likely?to?cause?serious?emotional?distress?to?members?of?the?decedent’s?immediate?family?regardless?of?whether?they?observe?the?actual?negligent?conduct?or?injury?to?the?remains?of?their?decedent.

Even?in?the?context?of?an?action?for?breach?of?contract,?where?recovery?of?damages?solely?for?emotional?distress?resulting?from?a?breach?is?not?normally?[54?Cal.3d?895]?allowed,?the?provision?of?services?related?to?the?disposition?of?human?remains?has?been?distinguished?because?of?the?unique?nature?of?the?services.

This?court?so?held?in?Chelini?v.?Nieri?(1948)?32?Cal.2d?480?[196?P.2d?915],?where?defendant?mortician?breached?a?contract?to?preserve?the?body?of?the?plaintiff’s?mother.?The?court?held?that?recovery?for?emotional?distress,?there?accompanied?by?symptoms?of?physical?illness,?was?permitted?in?that?context?because?the?contract?was?directly?related?to?the?comfort,?happiness,?or?personal?welfare?of?the?plaintiff.

More?recently,?in?Allen?v.?Jones?(1980)?104?Cal.App.3d?207,?211?[163?Cal.Rptr.?445],?e.g.,?the?defendant?operators?of?a?mortuary?contracted?to?ship?the?remains?of?plaintiff’s?decedent?brother?to?another?state.?The?remains?were?lost?in?transit.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?the?contract?was?one?which?so?affected?the?vital?concerns?of?an?individual?that?recovery?for?emotional?distress?was?permitted,?explaining:

“A?contract?whereby?a?mortician?agrees?to?prepare?a?body?for?burial?is?one?in?which?it?is?reasonably?foreseeable?that?breach?may?cause?mental?anguish?to?the?decedent’s?bereaved?relations.?’One?who?prepares?a?human?body?for?burial?and?conducts?a?funeral?usually?deals?with?the?living?in?their?most?difficult?and?delicate?moments?….?The?exhibition?of?callousness?or?indifference,?the?offer?of?insult?and?indignity,?can,?of?course,?inflict?no?injury?on?the?dead,?but?they?can?visit?agony?akin?to?torture?on?the?living.?So?true?is?this?that?the?chief?asset?of?a?mortician?and?the?most?conspicuous?element?of?his?advertisement?is?his?consideration?for?the?afflicted.?A?decent?respect?for?their?feelings?is?implied?in?every?contract?for?his?services.’?(Fitzsimmons?v.?Olinger?Mortuary?Ass’n.?(1932)?91?Colo.?544?[17?P.2d?535,?536-537].)”?In?a?similar?vein,?another?court?has?stated:?”The?tenderest?feelings?of?the?human?heart?center?around?the?remains?of?the?dead.?When?the?defendants?contracted?with?plaintiff?to?inter?the?body?of?her?deceased?husband?in?a?workmanlike?manner?they?did?so?with?the?knowledge?that?she?was?the?widow?and?would?naturally?and?probably?suffer?mental?anguish?if?they?failed?to?fulfill?their?contractual?obligation?in?the?manner?here?charged.?…?(Lamm?v.?Shingleton?(1949)?231?N.C.?10?[55?S.E.2d?810,?813-814];?Allen?v.?Jones,?supra,?104?Cal.App.3d?207,?211-212.)

In?all?of?the?reported?cases?called?to?our?attention,?however,?the?relatives?who?were?permitted?to?recover?for?negligence?in?the?conduct?of?funeral?and/or?related?services?were?aware?that?the?services?were?being?performed,?and?were?persons?for?whose?benefit?the?defendants?had?undertaken?to?provide?the?services.?Recognition?that?it?is?foreseeable?that?close?relatives?of?the?deceased?may?suffer?severe?emotional?distress?as?a?result?of?negligence?in?the?manner?in?which?the?corpse?of?their?decedent?is?handled?[54?Cal.3d?896]?was?in?that?context.?Plaintiffs?identify?no?case?in?which?persons?who?were?not?contemporaneously?aware?of?both?the?death?of?their?close?relative?and?the?nature?of?the?funeral-related?services?that?were?to?be?performed?have?been?held?to?be?foreseeable?victims?of?negligence?in?the?conduct?of?those?services.

We?agree,?therefore,?with?defendants’?observation?that?the?potential?plaintiffs?who?could?seek?damages?under?the?decision?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?not?appropriately?limited.?Under?that?court’s?decision?persons?who?were?infants?or?even?unborn?at?the?time?the?funeral-related?services?were?performed,?and?others?who?were?unaware?of?either?the?death?or?the?nature?of?the?services?performed,?could?sue?long?after?the?services?were?completed?on?learning?of?an?impropriety?in?the?disposition?of?the?remains.?It?would?be?unreasonable?to?consider?those?persons?to?be?among?the?close?relatives?for?whom?the?funeral-related?services?were?performed,?and?to?impose?liability?to?them?upon?defendants.?They?are?not?persons?for?whose?benefit?the?defendants?undertook?to?perform?services?and?thus?no?duty?was?owed?to?them.?They?are?not?foreseeable?victims?of?the?misconduct?alleged?in?the?model?complaint.

It?is?foreseeable,?however,?that?close?relatives?who?are?aware?that?funeral-related?services?are?to?be?undertaken,?but?who?are?unable?to?or?do?not?want?to?observe?the?manner?in?which?remains?are?prepared?for?burial?or?cremation,?and?thus?do?not?observe?the?mistreatment?of?their?decedent’s?remains,?may?suffer?serious?emotional?distress?on?learning?that?the?decedent’s?remains?have?been?mistreated.

  1. Moral?blame.

Here,?there?is?no?question?but?that?the?conduct?of?the?crematory?defendants,?and?that?of?the?mortuary?and?Carolina?defendants?that?are?alleged?to?have?known?or?should?have?known?that?the?crematory?defendants?were?engaging?in?misconduct,?was?outrageous?and?reprehensible.?Defendants?concede?as?much.?[10]?They?seek?to?limit?liability?to?the?statutory?right?holders?or?those?who?contract?for?funeral-related?services?on?the?basis?that?the?policy?of?the?state?recognizes?only?the?rights?of?those?persons.

We?disagree.?Provision?by?statute?for?the?disposal?of?human?remains,?and?the?imposition?of?duties?and?recognition?of?priority?of?right?(???7100,?7151),?does?not?reflect?a?legislative?intent?or?policy?to?protect?only?the?section?7100?right?holder?or?contracting?party?from?the?emotional?trauma?that?may?result?from?mistreatment?or?desecration?of?human?remains.?The?statutory?scheme?[54?Cal.3d?897]?establishes?only?an?orderly?process?by?which?to?ensure?that?proper?disposition?is?made?of?human?remains.fn.?24

Other?statutes?reflect?a?policy?of?respecting?the?religious,?ethical,?and?emotional?concerns?of?close?relatives?and?others?having?an?interest?in?assuring?that?the?disposition?of?human?remains?is?accomplished?in?a?dignified?and?respectful?manner.?Of?particular?significance?is?section?7054.7?which?prohibits,?absent?consent?by?the?statutory?right?holder,?both?multiple?cremations?and?the?commingling?of?cremated?remains.?Provision?for?consent?demonstrates?that?the?state?has?no?interest?itself?in?preventing?multiple?cremations?or?commingling?of?cremated?remains.?The?prohibition?evidently?exists?out?of?respect?for?the?sensibilities?of?the?surviving?relatives.

Section?7152?limits?anatomical?gifts?if?it?is?known?that?the?decedent?”was?a?member?of?a?religion,?church,?sect,?or?denomination?which?relies?solely?upon?prayer?for?the?healing?of?disease?or?which?has?religious?tenets?that?would?be?violated?by?the?disposition?of?the?human?body?or?parts?thereof?….”?Again,?a?policy?of?respecting?religious?beliefs?with?regard?to?the?disposition?of?human?remains?is?manifest.

Similar?recognition?that?the?sensibilities?of?all?survivors?merit?protection?is?found?in?other?legislation.?Section?7050.5?prohibits?desecration?of?human?buried?remains,?and?makes?special?provision?for?proper?disposition?of?Native?American?remains?discovered?during?an?excavation.?The?Legislature’s?findings?include?express?recognition?of?Native?American?”concerns?regarding?the?need?for?sensitive?treatment?and?disposition”?of?such?remains.?(Stats.?1982,?ch.?1492,???1,?subd.?(2)?p.?5778.?Cf.?Bock?v.?County?of?Los?Angeles?(1983)?150?Cal.App.3d?65?[197?Cal.Rptr.?470]?[statutes?governing?coroner’s?records?not?designed?to?protect?against?risk?of?emotional?distress?to?relative?of?decedent?who?was?not?promptly?identified].)

Section?8115?permits?cities?and?counties?to?establish?standards?governing?interment?in?order?to?ensure,?inter?alia,?”decent?and?respectful?treatment?of?human?remains,”?and?section?8101?prohibits?interference?with?persons?engaged?in?funeral?services?or?interments.?[54?Cal.3d?898]

Defendants’?conduct?transgressed?this?clearly?expressed?state?policy?giving?recognition?to,?and?imposing?on?providers?of?funeral-related?services?a?duty?to?respect,?the?expectations?of?both?decedents?and?their?survivors?that?the?remains?will?be?accorded?dignified?and?appropriate?treatment.

Imposition?of?civil?liability?for?misconduct?of?the?type?alleged?is?consistent?with?the?degree?of?moral?blame?attached?to?that?conduct,?and?with?the?goal?of?deterring?future?harm?of?a?similar?nature.

  1. Burden?and?consequences?to?the?community.

Defendants?contend?that?holding?them?liable?to?the?plaintiffs?who?seek?damages?in?this?case?would?impose?an?intolerable?burden?which?would,?in?turn,?result?in?detriment?to?the?public?by?decreasing?the?availability?of?and/or?increasing?the?cost?of?funeral-related?services.

We?disagree.?Limiting?the?plaintiffs?to?those?close?relatives?who?were?aware?that?the?services?were?being?performed?and?for?whom?the?services?were?performed?significantly?reduces?defendants’?potential?liability?for?negligently?inflicted?emotional?distress.?The?egregious?and?intentional?nature?of?the?conduct?at?issue?suggests?that?imposing?liability?does?not?threaten?defendants?with?future?or?continuing?liability?for?conduct?over?which?they?have?no?control.?Liability?for?negligently?inflicted?emotional?distress?exists?only?for?those?acts?that?would?foreseeably?cause?serious?emotional?distress?to?foreseeable?victims?to?whom?a?duty?is?owed.?While?the?intentional?nature?of?the?conduct?involved?suggests?that?insurance?may?not?be?available?as?a?means?by?which?to?defray?the?expense,?the?cost?to?defendants?of?avoiding?or?preventing?similar?misconduct?in?the?future?is?minimal.fn.?25

No?policy?suggests?that?defendants?should?be?shielded?from?the?consequences?of?their?conduct?by?refusing?to?recognize?the?right?of?these?plaintiffs?to?recover?for?the?severe?emotional?distress?they?have?suffered?as?a?direct?result?of?defendants’?misconduct.?[54?Cal.3d?899]

  1. Disproportionate?culpability.

Defendants?argue?that?if?the?reasoning?and?rule?of?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?667-668,?and?Ochoa?v.?Superior?Court?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?159,?165,?footnote?6?[216?Cal.Rptr.?661,?703?P.2d?1],?limiting?recovery?for?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress?to?those?who?contemporaneously?observe?both?the?negligent?act?and?the?injury?it?causes?is?not?applied?to?the?claims?of?these?plaintiffs,?then?they?will?suffer?liability?that?is?out?of?all?proportion?to?their?culpability.fn.?26

Those?cases?did?distinguish?a?plaintiff?whose?emotional?distress?was?engendered?by?witnessing?serious?injury?to?a?close?relative?from?one?who?suffered?emotional?distress?on?learning?of?the?injury?from?another?person.?The?defendants?in?those?cases?had?no?preexisting?duty?to?the?plaintiff,?however.?Plaintiffs?here?do?not?seek?relief?on?the?basis?of?witnessing?the?injury?of?another,?but?for?an?injury?caused?by?the?breach?of?a?duty?owed?directly?to?each?plaintiff.

The?Thing?v.?La?Chusa?limitation?on?Dillon?v.?Legg?(supra,?68?Cal.2d?728)?recovery?is?not?appropriate?for?that?reason.?Moreover,?because?misconduct?of?the?type?alleged?here-mistreatment?of?human?remains?by?a?crematory-while?likely?to?cause?severe?emotional?distress,?would?rarely,?if?ever,?take?place?within?the?immediate?presence?and?view?of?the?foreseeable?victims,?providers?of?funeral-related?services?would?avoid?liability?for?injuries?caused?by?their?outrageous?conduct?if?a?similar?limitation?were?applied.?No?public?policy?supports?the?immunity?defendants?seek.

Defendants’?attempt?to?analogize?the?emotional?distress?injuries?alleged?here?to?that?in?issue?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?and?Ochoa?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?39?Cal.3d?159,?also?fails?for?other?reasons.?In?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?we?restricted?recovery?to?close?relatives?who?are?percipient?witnesses?to?the?negligent?injury?of?the?tortfeasor’s?immediate?victim?in?order?to?avoid?unlimited?liability?out?of?all?proportion?to?the?culpability?of?the?negligent?actor,?and?in?recognition?that?the?percipient?witness?usually?suffers?an?emotional?impact?beyond?that?suffered?whenever?one?learns?from?another?of?the?death?or?injury?of?a?loved?one.?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?667.)?Here,?by?contrast,?the?emotional?injury?is?suffered?by?persons?for?whom?the?defendants?have?undertaken?to?provide?a?service,?the?very?purpose?of?which?is?to?alleviate?existing?and?avoid?future?emotional?distress?arising?from?the?death.?The?concerns?which?justified?the?restrictions?that?defendants’?urge?us?to?extend?to?this?case?are?not?present.?The?potential?[54?Cal.3d?900]?plaintiffs?are?limited?to?those?for?whom?defendants?performed?a?service.?The?defendants’?potential?liability?is?not?out?of?proportion?to?their?conduct,?and?it?is?not?based?simply?on?the?type?of?emotional?distress?the?plaintiffs?could?be?anticipated?to?suffer?as?a?result?of?the?death?of?a?loved?one.

Thus,?permitting?these?victims?to?recover?for?the?emotional?distress?they?suffer?does?not?threaten,?as?was?the?case?in?Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?unlimited?liability?for?conduct?that?is?simply?negligent.?Intentional?and?outrageous?conduct?on?the?part?of?the?crematory?defendants,?of?which?the?mortuary?and?Carolina?defendants?knew?or?should?have?known,?is?alleged.?The?class?of?potential?plaintiffs?we?approve?here?is?limited?in?number?since?it?encompasses?only?those?close?relatives?who?were?aware?both?of?the?death?of?a?loved?one?and?the?nature?of?the?funeral-related?services?that?were?to?be?performed?on?their?behalf.?Defendants?will?not?be?liable,?as?they?fear,?to?persons?not?yet?born?when?the?misconduct?occurred,?or?who?had?no?knowledge?that?their?relative?had?died?until?they?learned?of?the?mistreatment?of?the?remains.?They?will?not?be?liable?to?other?family?members?who?are?upset?by?the?type?of?services?for?which?the?contracting?party?arranged.?Nor?is?the?number?of?potential?plaintiffs?significant.?Defendants’?purported?liability?to?the?relatives?of?more?than?16,000?decedents?is?not?a?factor?arising?from?a?failure?to?narrow?the?class?of?potential?plaintiffs.?Rather,?it?is?a?factor?of?the?number?of?decedents?whose?remains?defendants?allegedly?mistreated.

  1. Causation:?Connection?Between?Conduct?of?Mortuary?and?Crematory?Defendants?and?Injury.

Our?conclusion?that?plaintiffs?have?standing?as?direct?victims?of?defendants’?misconduct?does?not?resolve?that?part?of?defendants’?claim?that?plaintiffs?lack?standing,?in?which?they?observe?that?plaintiffs?allege?only?emotional?distress?caused?by?media?reports?of?defendants’?misconduct.?We?consider?this?aspect?of?defendants’?argument?as?one?asserting?that?the?complaint?fails?to?state?a?cause?of?action?because?it?does?not?allege?facts?sufficient?to?establish?that?plaintiffs’?injury?was?caused?by?the?breach?of?the?duty?owed?to?plaintiffs.

[11]?A?plaintiff?seeking?to?recover?damages?from?a?negligent?defendant?must?allege?a?causal?connection?between?the?negligence?and?the?plaintiff’s?injury.?(Dunn?v.?Dufficy?(1924)?194?Cal.?383,?386?[228?P.?1029].)?A?plaintiff?”must?allege?a?causal?connection?between?the?negligence?…?and?the?injury?he?suffered.?Ordinarily?that?is?accomplished?by?implication?from?the?juxtaposition?of?the?allegations?of?wrongful?conduct?and?harm.?(See?4?Witkin,?Cal.?Procedure?[(3d?ed.?1985)]?Pleading,????561-566,?pp.?600-606.)?However,?where?the?pleaded?facts?of?negligence?and?injury?do?not?naturally?give?rise?to?an?inference?of?causation?the?plaintiff?must?plead?specific?facts?[54?Cal.3d?901]?affording?an?inference?the?one?caused?the?others.”?(Blain?v.?Doctor’s?Co.?(1990)?222?Cal.App.3d?1048,?1066?[272?Cal.Rptr.?250].)

Although?introduced?into?these?proceedings?by?the?trial?court?as?a?”standing”?question,?the?trial?court?did?so?on?a?theory?that?plaintiffs’?standing?to?recover?from?defendants?for?the?emotional?injuries?they?have?suffered?turns?on?whether?all?of?the?individual?plaintiffs?and?the?class?members?have?alleged?or?may?be?able?to?state?a?cause?of?action?against?defendants.?To?do?so?they?must?allege?facts?to?establish?that?causal?connection.?As?did?the?Court?of?Appeal,?therefore,?we?consider?the?issue?as?if?it?had?been?raised?by?a?demurrer?to?the?complaint.

[12]?We?agree?with?the?defendants?that?media?or?other?secondhand?reports?about?psychologically?devastating?events?are?not?a?sufficient?basis?for?imposition?of?liability?for?emotional?distress?suffered?by?persons?who?are?upset?thereby.?Damages?may?be?recovered?only?for?an?injury?resulting?from?defendant’s?breach?of?a?duty?owed?to?the?plaintiff.?The?duty?here?was?to?provide?respectful?and?dignified?treatment?of?the?remains?of?the?plaintiffs’?particular?decedents.?Media?reports?of?a?general?pattern?of?misconduct?are?not?sufficient,?in?and?of?themselves,?to?establish?that?defendants’?misconduct?included?mishandling?of?the?remains?of?each?plaintiff’s?decedent.?Thus,?an?allegation?that?a?plaintiff?suffered?emotional?distress?on?learning?of?that?pattern?of?misconduct?does?not?allege?injury?caused?by?a?breach?of?a?duty?owed?to?the?plaintiffs.

Plaintiffs?allege,?however,?that?they?learned?from?the?media?reports?that?the?remains?of?”their”?decedents?had?been?improperly?treated.?The?ability?of?each?plaintiff?to?prove?either?that?at?the?time?the?plaintiff?learned?of?the?misconduct?he?or?she?knew?or?had?substantial?reason?to?believe?that?the?decedent?was?a?victim?of?defendants’?misconduct,fn.?27?or?that?the?alleged?continuing?emotional?distress?each?plaintiff?suffers?is?based?on?knowledge?that?the?decedent’s?remains?have?been?mishandled,?is?a?question?that?is?not?relevant?at?this?stage?of?the?proceedings.?The?question?is?only?whether?the?complaint?alleges?a?sufficiently?direct?causation?between?defendants’?conduct?and?the?emotional?distress?suffered?by?plaintiffs.?We?conclude?that?it?does.

We?are?not?persuaded?by?defendants’?argument?that?permitting?recovery?in?this?case?will?create?tort?liability?for?the?emotional?impact?of?reports?of?[54?Cal.3d?902]?disturbing?events?carried?on?the?evening?news,?and?for?conduct?which?occurred?many?years?in?the?past.?If?plaintiffs?are?unable?to?establish?a?direct?causal?connection?between?defendants’?misconduct?and?the?emotional?distress?suffered?by?plaintiffs,?then?they?may?not?recover.?A?plaintiff?who?is?unable?to?establish?that?he?or?she?suffered?severe?emotional?distress,?and?that?the?emotional?distress?was?caused?by?a?well-founded?substantial?certainty?that?his?or?her?decedent’s?remains?were?among?those?reportedly?mistreated,?may?not?recover?damages.?A?generalized?concern?that?the?remains?of?a?relative?may?have?been?involved,?arising?out?of?a?media?report?of?a?pattern?of?misconduct,?is?insufficient?to?satisfy?the?requirement?that?there?be?a?direct?connection?between?a?defendant’s?conduct?and?the?injury?suffered?by?the?plaintiff.?It?does?not?supply?a?necessary?element-that?the?injury,?here?emotional?distress,?be?caused?by?a?breach?of?the?defendant’s?duty?to?the?particular?plaintiff.?(See?Khan?v.?Shiley?(1990)?217?Cal.App.3d?848?[266?Cal.Rptr.?106];?Stahl?v.?William?Necker,?Inc.?(1918)?184?A.D.?85,?92?[171?N.Y.S.?728,?733].)?On?the?other?hand,?were?we?to?accept?the?suggestions?of?Justice?Kennard?that?these?plaintiffs?be?permitted?to?recover?unless?defendants?prove?that?their?decedents’?remains?were?not?among?those?mistreated,?a?plaintiff?could?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress?based?on?nothing?more?than?a?media?report?of?misconduct?that?may?have?involved?the?plaintiff’s?loved?one.

The?source?of?a?plaintiff’s?knowledge?of?misconduct?which?cannot?be?readily?observed,?and?the?time?at?which?the?knowledge?was?acquired,?do?not?otherwise?affect?the?plaintiff’s?standing?to?seek?relief?except?insofar?as?the?statute?of?limitations?may?bar?the?action.?These?factors?instead?go?to?the?reasonableness?of?a?plaintiff’s?claim?to?have?suffered?severe?emotional?distress?and?thus?present?issues?for?the?trier?of?fact.?We?cannot?say?as?a?matter?of?law,?as?defendants?would?have?us?do,?that?belated?discovery?of?mistreatment?of?the?remains?of?a?close?relative?cannot?cause?severe?emotional?distress.?That?suits?may?be?filed?by?some?persons?as?to?whom?the?degree?of?suffering?claimed?is?unreasonable?is?not?a?basis?for?denying?relief?to?all.?(Dillon?v.?Legg,?supra,?68?Cal.2d?728,?736-?739.)

V?Intentional?Infliction?of?Emotional?Distress

[13a]?There?is?merit?in?defendants’?claim?that?the?Court?of?Appeal?erred?in?concluding?that?because?the?mishandling?of?the?remains?of?plaintiffs’?decedents?was?intentional?and?outrageous,?all?family?members?and?close?friends?of?the?decedents?could?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress.?The?Court?of?Appeal?reached?that?conclusion?upon?reasoning?that?defendants’?[54?Cal.3d?903]?conduct?established?the?elements?of?the?tort?of?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress.

The?complaint?does?not?allege,?however,?that?any?plaintiff?was?present?when?the?misconduct?occurred,?or?that?defendants?or?any?of?them?acted?with?the?intent?of?causing?emotional?distress?to?the?plaintiffs?or?knowledge?that?the?conduct?was?substantially?certain?to?cause?distress?to?any?particular?plaintiff.?The?essence?of?the?allegations?is?simply?that?the?conduct?was?intentional,?was?outrageous,?and?was?substantially?certain?to?cause?extreme?emotional?distress?to?relatives?and?close?friends?of?the?deceased.

[14]?The?elements?of?the?tort?of?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?are:?”?'(1)?extreme?and?outrageous?conduct?by?the?defendant?with?the?intention?of?causing,?or?reckless?disregard?of?the?probability?of?causing,?emotional?distress;?(2)?the?plaintiff’s?suffering?severe?or?extreme?emotional?distress;?and?(3)?actual?and?proximate?causation?of?the?emotional?distress?by?the?defendant’s?outrageous?conduct.?…’?Conduct?to?be?outrageous?must?be?so?extreme?as?to?exceed?all?bounds?of?that?usually?tolerated?in?a?civilized?community.”?(Davidson?v.?City?of?Westminister?(1982)?32?Cal.3d?197,?209?[185?Cal.Rptr.?252,?649?P.2d?894].)?The?defendant?must?have?engaged?in?”conduct?intended?to?inflict?injury?or?engaged?in?with?the?realization?that?injury?will?result.”?(Id.?at?p.?210.)

It?is?not?enough?that?the?conduct?be?intentional?and?outrageous.?It?must?be?conduct?directed?at?the?plaintiff,?or?occur?in?the?presence?of?a?plaintiff?of?whom?the?defendant?is?aware.

Past?decisions?of?this?court?have?invariably?presupposed?that?the?defendant’s?misconduct?was?directed?to?and?was?intended?to?cause?severe?or?extreme?emotional?distress?to?a?particular?individual?or,?when?reckless?disregard?was?the?theory?of?recovery,?that?the?defendant?directed?the?conduct?at,?and?in?conscious?disregard?of?the?threat?to,?a?particular?individual.?In?the?seminal?case?permitting?recovery?even?absent?physical?manifestation?of?the?injury,?State?Rubbish?etc.?Assn.?v.?Siliznoff?(1952)?38?Cal.2d?330,?337?[240?P.2d?282],?we?observed?that?theretofore?California?had?allowed?recovery?when?”physical?injury?resulted?from?intentionally?subjecting?the?plaintiff?to?serious?mental?distress.”?There,?of?course,?agents?of?the?defendant?had?intentionally?caused?the?plaintiff?to?suffer?extreme?fright?for?the?purpose?of?gaining?a?business?advantage?of?the?particular?plaintiff.

Similarly,?in?Cervantez?v.?J.?C.?Penney?Co.?(1979)?24?Cal.3d?579?[156?Cal.Rptr.?198,?595?P.2d?975],?in?which?reckless?disregard?was?a?theory,?the?misconduct?was?the?arrest?of?the?plaintiff?with?knowledge?that?he?had?not?committed?an?offense?or?disregard?of?whether?he?had.?In?Agarwal?v.?Johnson?(1979)?25?Cal.3d?932?[160?Cal.Rptr.?141,?603?P.2d?58],?and?Alcorn?v.?Anbro?[54?Cal.3d?904]?Engineering,?Inc.?(1970)?2?Cal.3d?493?[86?Cal.Rptr.?88,?468?P.2d?216],?racial?epithets?were?directed?at?the?plaintiff.?In?Nally?v.?Grace?Community?Church?(1988)?47?Cal.3d?278?[253?Cal.Rptr.?97,?763?P.2d?948],?in?which?a?wrongful?death?action?was?predicated?on?a?theory?of?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress,?defendant’s?conduct?was?directed?specifically?at?the?plaintiff’s?decedent?during?his?lifetime.?In?Cole?v.?Fair?Oaks?Fire?Protection?Dist.?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?148?[233?Cal.Rptr.?308,?729?P.2d?743],?defendants?continually?harassed?the?plaintiff.

Davidson?v.?City?of?Westminster,?supra,?32?Cal.3d?197,?is?particularly?instructive.?There?the?plaintiff?sought?damages?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?based?on?the?conduct?of?police?officers?who?failed?to?intervene?or?protect?her?when?they?observed?an?assault?suspect?enter?the?public?laundromat;?the?suspect?had?stabbed?the?plaintiff?while?the?defendants?had?the?premises?under?surveillance.?We?held?that?in?the?absence?of?an?intent?on?the?part?of?the?defendant?officers?to?injure?the?plaintiff,?their?conduct?was?not?the?kind?of?extreme?and?outrageous?conduct?that?would?give?rise?to?liability?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress.?(Id.?at?p.?210.)

The?requirement?that?the?defendant’s?conduct?be?directed?primarily?at?the?plaintiff?is?a?factor?which?distinguishes?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?from?the?negligent?infliction?of?such?injury.?We?explained?this?distinction?in?Ochoa?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?39?Cal.3d?159.?There,?the?plaintiffs?sought?damages?for?the?emotional?distress?they?endured?when?over?the?course?of?several?days?they?observed?the?deteriorating?condition?of?their?teenage?son?and?the?refusal?of?defendants?to?provide?or?permit?them?to?provide?needed?medical?treatment.?Theories?of?negligent?and?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?were?among?the?causes?of?action?pled.?This?court?held?that?while?the?complaint?stated?a?cause?of?action?for?negligence,?the?elements?of?a?cause?of?action?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?were?not?stated?because?the?defendant’s?acts?were?directed?at?the?child,?not?the?parents.

“Plaintiffs?appear?to?assume?that?a?cause?of?action?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?may?be?established?on?the?same?theory?as?that?for?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress.?The?two?torts?are?entirely?different.?(See?4?Witkin,?Summary?of?Cal.?Law?(8th?ed.?1974)???233?et?seq.?and???548?et?seq.)?…

“A?cause?of?action?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?must?allege?facts?showing?outrageous?conduct?which?is?intentional?or?reckless?and?which?is?outside?the?bounds?of?decency.?It?has?been?said?in?summarizing?the?cases?discussing?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?that?’the?rule?which?seems?to?have?emerged?is?that?there?is?liability?for?conduct?exceeding?[54?Cal.3d?905]?all?bounds?usually?tolerated?by?decent?society,?of?a?nature?which?is?especially?calculated?to?cause,?and?does?cause,?mental?distress?of?a?very?serious?kind.’?[Citations.]?Here,?although?defendants’?conduct?did?cause?the?plaintiffs?untold?distress,?it?is?evident?that?the?defendants?acted?negligently?rather?than?with?the?purpose?of?causing?the?plaintiffs?emotional?distress.”?(Ochoa?v.?Superior?Court,?supra,?39?Cal.3d?at?p.?165,?fn.?5.)

In?Ochoa,?the?defendants’?conduct?was?directed?primarily?at?plaintiffs’?decedent.?(39?Cal.3d?at?pp.?172-173.)?In?concluding?that?recovery?was?not?available?under?an?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?theory,?we?noted?that?to?the?extent?such?recovery?had?been?allowed,?it?has?been?limited?to?”?’the?most?extreme?cases?of?violent?attack,?where?there?is?some?especial?likelihood?of?fright?or?shock.’?”?(Id.?at?p.?165,?fn.?5.?Accord,?Coon?v.?Joseph?(1987)?192?Cal.App.3d?1269?[237?Cal.Rptr.?873].)

Recovery?on?an?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?theory?and?based?on?reckless?conduct?has?been?allowed?in?the?funeral-related?services?context.?(See?2?Harper?et?al.,?The?Law?of?Torts,?supra,???9.4?at?pp.?621-624,?and?cases?cited.)?However,?as?Professors?Prosser?and?Keeton?note,?the?cases?which?describe?the?tort?as?intentional?mishandling?of?a?corpse?actually?seek?to?protect?the?personal?feelings?of?the?survivors.?Therefore?the?tort?is?properly?categorized?as?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress,?and?presupposes?action?directed?at?the?plaintiff?or?undertaken?with?knowledge?of?the?likelihood?that?the?plaintiff?will?suffer?emotional?distress.?(Prosser?&?Keeton,?Torts,?supra,?at?pp.?60-?63.)?These?authors?acknowledge?the?problems?associated?with?permitting?recovery?for?action?that?is?not?directed?at?the?plaintiff?or?undertaken?with?knowledge?of?the?likelihood?of?harm?to?the?plaintiff,?noting?the?doctrine?of?transferred?intent?is?inappropriate?in?this?context.?They?suggest?that?to?justify?recovery?the?action?must?be?directed?to?the?plaintiff,?and?if?reckless?conduct?is?the?basis?for?recovery,?the?plaintiff?is?usually?present?at?the?time?of?the?conduct?and?is?known?by?the?defendant?to?be?present.?(See?also,?Prosser,?Insult?and?Outrage?(1956)?44?Cal.L.Rev.?40,?56-59.)

We?agree.?”The?law?limits?claims?of?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?to?egregious?conduct?toward?plaintiff?proximately?caused?by?defendant.”?(Miller?v.?National?Broadcasting?Co.?(1986)?187?Cal.App.3d?1463,?1489?[232?Cal.Rptr.?668,?69?A.L.R.4th?1027].?Italics?added,?original?italics?omitted.)?The?only?exception?to?this?rule?is?that?recognized?when?the?defendant?is?aware,?but?acts?with?reckless?disregard,?of?the?plaintiff?and?the?probabilitythat?his?or?her?conduct?will?cause?severe?emotional?distress?to?that?plaintiff.fn.?28?(Ledger?v.?Tippitt?(1985)?164?Cal.App.3d?625,?640-642?[210?Cal.Rptr.?[54?Cal.3d?906]?814];?Taylor?v.?Vallelunga?(1959)?171?Cal.App.2d?107,?109?[339?P.2d?910].)?Where?reckless?disregard?of?the?plaintiff’s?interests?is?the?theory?of?recovery,?the?presence?of?the?plaintiff?at?the?time?the?outrageous?conduct?occurs?is?recognized?as?the?element?establishing?a?higher?degree?of?culpability?which,?in?turn,?justifies?recovery?of?greater?damages?by?a?broader?group?of?plaintiffs?than?allowed?on?a?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress?theory.?(See?Rest.2d?Torts,???868,?com.?g.)

[15b]?Plaintiffs?here?have?not?alleged?that?the?conduct?of?any?of?the?defendants?was?directed?primarily?at?them,?was?calculated?to?cause?them?severe?emotional?distress,?or?was?done?with?knowledge?of?their?presence?and?of?a?substantial?certainty?that?they?would?suffer?severe?emotional?injury.?We?conclude,?therefore,?that?the?model?complaint?does?not?establish?that?any?of?the?plaintiffs?has?standing?to?sue?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress.?Because?this?is?a?coordination?proceeding,?however,?whether?to?permit?further?amendment?should?be?left?to?the?discretion?of?the?trial?court.

VI?Devolution

The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that,?on?the?death?of?a?statutory?right?holder,?the?section?7100?power?to?control?the?disposition?of?remains?devolves?pursuant?to?the?priorities?established?by?that?section.?Defendants?Laurieanne?Lamb?Sconce,?Jerry?Sconce,?and?the?Lamb?Funeral?Home?suggest?that?this?holding?is?ambiguous?and?if?read?to?permit?a?succession?of?persons?to?sue?for?their?individual?emotional?distress?would?create?a?never?ending?chain?of?plaintiffs.?The?holding?that?the?right?devolves?is?consistent?with?the?legislative?intent?that?there?be?a?person?having?both?the?obligation?and?the?right?to?dispose?of?human?remains.?Our?conclusion?that?relatives?other?than?the?statutory?right?holder?have?standing?to?sue,?but?that?only?those?persons?who?were?aware?of?the?funeral-related?services?to?be?performed?at?the?time?the?services?were?performed?have?standing,?eliminates?any?potential?ambiguity.

VII?Disposition

The?judgment?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?is?modified?to?direct?the?superior?court?to?conform?its?order?on?standing?to?sue?to?reflect?the?views?expressed?herein.

Lucas,?C.?J.,?Panelli,?J.,?George,?J.,?and?Turner?(Paul?A.),?J.,fn.?*?concurred.?[54?Cal.3d?907]

MOSK,?J.,

Concurring?and?Dissenting.

I?agree?with?the?majority?that?those?close?family?members?who?were?aware?of?both?the?decedent’s?death?and?the?nature?of?the?funeral?services?to?be?performed?may?state?a?claim?for?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress.fn.?1?I?also?agree?that?the?power?to?control?the?disposition?of?remains?devolves?according?to?the?priorities?established?by?section?7100?of?the?Health?and?Safety?Code.

I?do?not?agree,?however,?that?no?plaintiffs?may?sue?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?(IIED)?because?the?admittedly?outrageous?conduct?was?not?directed?primarily?at?them,?nor?did?they?witness?it.?It?is?paradoxical?that?the?majority?find?defendants?liable?for?negligent?but?not?intentional?conduct.?The?latter,?being?more?reprehensible,?should?render?the?perpetrators?liable?to?a?greater?rather?than?a?lesser?extent.

The?majority?assert?that?to?require?defendants?to?perform?the?acts?in?plaintiffs’?presence?ensures?the?high?degree?of?culpability?necessary?to?justify?the?greater?damages?allowed?in?an?IIED?case.?In?my?view,?if?the?acts?alleged?are?found?to?be?true,?defendants?are?highly?culpable?regardless?of?whether?plaintiffs?witnessed?the?mutilation.?I?would?allow?the?trier?of?fact?to?consider?the?issue?of?IIED.

Further,?I?would?not?limit?the?class?of?plaintiffs?in?IIED?cases?to?blood?relations.?The?issue?of?whether?a?person?suffered?severe?distress?is?properly?left?to?the?trier?of?fact.?We?should?not?rule?that,?as?a?matter?of?law,?a?decedent’s?estranged?sibling?may?have?suffered?emotional?distress?but?not?a?decedent’s?close?and?longtime?business?partner.

I?would?allow?plaintiffs?to?proceed?on?the?IIED?theory?because?defendants’?alleged?conduct?was?reckless.?IIED?may?be?shown?in?three?ways:?a?subjective?intention?to?cause?emotional?distress,?a?substantial?certainty?that?such?distress?would?result,?or?reckless?behavior?leading?to?emotional?distress.?The?majority?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?906)?deny?plaintiffs?a?cause?of?action?for?IIED?because?they?did?not?allege?that?defendants’?conduct?”was?directed?primarily?at?them,?was?calculated?to?cause?them?severe?emotional?distress,?or?was?done?with?knowledge?of?their?presence?and?of?a?substantial?certainty?that?they?would?suffer?severe?emotional?injury.”

Although?defendants?may?have?been?motivated?by?profit?rather?than?by?a?subjective?desire?to?distress?these?plaintiffs,?the?trier?of?fact?could?still?hold?defendants?liable?on?a?reckless?conduct?theory.?Recklessness?may?be?found?[54?Cal.3d?908]?from?acts?”of?an?unreasonable?character?in?disregard?of?a?known?or?obvious?risk?that?was?so?great?as?to?make?it?highly?probable?that?harm?would?follow.”?(Prosser?&?Keeton,?The?Law?of?Torts?(5th?ed.?1984)???34,?p.?213.)?IIED?may?be?distinguished?from?negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress?(NIED)?because?recklessness?requires?a?higher?degree?of?fault?than?simple?negligence.

The?majority?acknowledge?(maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?905)?that?IIED?may?be?shown?from?conduct?undertaken?with?knowledge?of?the?likelihood?that?the?plaintiff?will?suffer?emotional?distress.?If?defendants?in?this?emotionally?charged?occupation?intentionally?mutilated?bodies?and?comingled?remains,?they?necessarily?realized?that?their?conduct?would?cause?the?decedents’?loved?ones?severe?emotional?distress.?(See?Golston?v.?Lincoln?Cemetery,?Inc.?(Mo.Ct.?App.?1978)?573?S.W.2d?700,?704.)

The?limits?that?the?majority?seek?to?place?on?the?tort?of?IIED?are,?in?this?context,?unjustified.?To?require?that?plaintiffs?be?present?at?the?scene?of?the?outrageous?conduct?is?unrealistic.?It?will?be?a?rare?case?indeed?in?which?a?funeral?home?mutilates?a?decedent’s?body?in?the?presence?of?the?grieving?family?or?displays?the?mutilated?body?to?them.?The?majority?thus?effectively?limit?a?plaintiff’s?recourse?in?cases?involving?this?type?of?reprehensible?conduct?to?the?lesser?tort?of?NIED.?Further,?the?majority’s?requirement?that?defendants?consciously?direct?outrageous?conduct?at?plaintiffs?makes?the?”recklessness”?prong?indistinguishable?from?the?”subjective?intent”?prong.

Other?states’?courts?have?found?a?cause?of?action?for?IIED?under?similar?circumstances.?For?example,?in?Whitehair?v.?Highland?Memory?Gardens,?Inc.?(W.Va.?1985)?327?S.E.2d?438,?440?[53?A.L.R.4th?383],?the?court?held?that?the?plaintiff?could?state?a?cause?of?action?when?the?defendant?mishandled?the?bodies?of?her?sister,?two?aunts?and?a?cousin?during?relocation?of?its?cemetery.?In?Scarpaci?v.?Milwaukee?County?(1980)?96?Wis.2d?663?[292?N.W.2d?816,?820,?18?A.L.R.4th?829],?the?court?held?that?parents?who?alleged?that?the?county?wrongfully?performed?an?autopsy?on?their?son?could?state?a?claim?for?intentional?interference?with?the?right?to?bury?their?child.?And?in?Carney?v.?Knollwood?Cemetery?Ass’n?(1986)?33?Ohio?App.3d?31?[514?N.E.2d?430,?435],?the?court?held?that?the?plaintiffs,?who?learned?by?a?television?broadcast?that?the?grave?of?their?ancestor?had?been?disturbed,?could?state?a?claim?for?IIED.

A?Florida?appellate?court?recently?explained?that?in?cases?in?which?the?defendant’s?outrageous?conduct?is?directed?to?a?third?person,?the?emotional?distress?felt?by?the?victim’s?close?relatives?on?learning?of?the?acts?is?not?actionable?unless?they?observed?the?conduct?and?the?conduct?was?directed?at?them;?however,?”unique?considerations”?apply?in?cases?involving?dead?bodies?or?pictures?of?dead?bodies.?(Williams?v.?City?of?Minneola?(Fla.?Dist.?[54?Cal.3d?909]?Ct.?App.?1991)?575?So.2d?683,?694.)?The?court?held?that?the?mother?and?sister?of?a?decedent?could?state?a?cause?of?action?for?outrageous?infliction?of?emotional?distress?by?reckless?conduct?based?on?the?defendants’?exhibition?of?a?videotape?of?the?decedent’s?autopsy,?even?though?they?were?not?present?at?the?display.?It?reasoned,?”One?who?behaves?outrageously?with?regard?to?pictures?of?a?dead?body?can?be?presumed?to?know?that?severe?emotional?distress?will?be?inflicted?thereby?on?those?who?were?closely?related?to?the?deceased,?should?those?survivors?become?aware?of?the?tort-?feasor’s?behavior.”?(Id.?at?p.?693.)

The?cases?cited?by?the?majority?do?not?apply?to?the?present?situation.?Ochoa?v.?Superior?Court?(1985)?39?Cal.3d?159?[216?Cal.Rptr.?661,?703?P.2d?1],?held?that?the?plaintiffs,?parents?of?a?minor?who?died?while?confined?in?a?juvenile?facility,?could?not?state?a?claim?for?IIED?based?on?the?defendants’?failure?to?provide?or?permit?them?to?provide?needed?medical?treatment?for?their?teenage?son;?we?reasoned?that?the?defendants’?acts?were?directed?at?the?child,?not?the?parents.?One?obvious?fact,?however,?readily?distinguishes?the?case:?in?Ochoa?the?defendants’?outrageous?conduct?was?directed?at?a?living?person;?by?contrast,?the?only?persons?who?could?be?hurt?by?defendants’?outrageous?conduct?in?the?present?case?are?the?decedents’?survivors.

As?the?majority?note,?public?policy?considerations?limit?the?right?of?a?bystander?to?recover?damages?for?the?emotional?distress?suffered?as?a?result?of?witnessing?negligent?conduct?that?causes?physical?injury?to?a?third?person:?”If?any?and?all?bystanders?who?witnessed?the?injury-causing?event?were?permitted?to?recover?for?ensuing?emotional?distress,?the?defendant’s?liability?could?be?out?of?all?proportion?to?the?degree?of?fault.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?at?p.?885.)

The?scope?of?liability?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?is?not,?however,?limited?by?the?same?public?policy?dictates.?As?the?Court?of?Appeal?stated?in?this?case,?”an?intentional?wrongdoer?is?liable?for?a?broad?range?of?the?effects?of?intentional?acts.?…?Avoidance?of?liability?out?of?all?proportion?to?a?defendant’s?negligence?is?not?a?concern?when?an?intentional?tort?is?alleged.?As?a?society,?we?seek?to?punish?the?intentional?wrongdoer?and?deter?such?conduct?by?others.”

Further,?I?can?find?no?public?policy?reason?to?limit?the?class?of?potential?plaintiffs?who?may?sue?for?IIED?to?family?members.?A?longtime?business?associate?should?be?allowed?to?present?a?case?for?IIED?after?a?preliminary?showing?that?he?or?she?had?a?close?relationship?with?the?decedent.?Proximate?causation?principles?such?as?foreseeability?do?not?belong?in?the?analysis?of?an?intentional?tort.?Of?course,?each?plaintiff?will?have?to?prove?all?the?elements?[54?Cal.3d?910]?of?his?or?her?case.?I?would?merely?hold?that?they?should?be?permitted?to?so?attempt.

KENNARD,?J.,

Concurring?and?Dissenting.

I?agree?with?the?majority?that?the?complaint?at?issue?does?not?state?a?cause?of?action?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress.?I?agree?also?that?persons?who?have?a?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?a?decedent’s?remains,?and?who?seek?to?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress?caused?by?the?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?the?remains,?need?not?allege?or?prove?that?they?witnessed?the?mishandling.

I?do?not?agree,?however,?that?the?class?of?persons?who?may?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress?negligently?caused?by?the?mishandling?of?remains?includes?all?of?the?decedent’s?close?family?members?who?were?aware?that?funeral?or?crematory?services?were?being?performed.?That?holding?disregards?the?decisions?of?this?court?imposing?limits?on?tort?actions?for?intangible?injuries.?Those?decisions?compel?the?conclusion?that?the?class?of?plaintiffs?who?may?recover?emotional?distress?damages?for?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?remains?is?limited?to?persons?having?a?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?the?remains?and?those?members?of?the?decedent’s?immediate?family?who?learned?of?the?mishandling?by?observing?it?or?its?direct?consequences.

I?also?disagree?with?this?statement:?”A?plaintiff?who?is?unable?to?establish?…?that?the?emotional?distress?was?caused?by?a?well-founded?substantial?certainty?that?his?or?her?decedent’s?remains?were?among?those?reportedly?mistreated,?may?not?recover?damages.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?pp.?902.)?Under?the?particular?facts?of?this?case,?imposing?such?a?burden?could?unjustly?prevent?recovery?by?many?plaintiffs.?I?would?hold?that?a?plaintiff?may?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress?caused?by?knowledge?that?his?or?her?decedent’s?remains?were?entrusted?to?defendants?for?cremation?during?a?period?of?time?when?the?defendants?frequently?mishandled?remains?so?entrusted?to?them,?unless?the?defendants?can?prove?that?the?remains?of?the?plaintiff’s?decedent?were?not?mishandled.

I

When?a?mortuary?or?crematory?negligently?or?intentionally?mishandles?a?decedent’s?remains,?those?persons?having?a?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?the?remains?may?sue?in?tort?and?recover?damages?for?mental?distress?caused?by?the?mishandling.?This?right?of?recovery?is?recognized?in?California?and?virtually?every?other?state.?(Allen?v.?Jones?(1980)?104?Cal.App.3d?207,?215?[163?Cal.Rptr.?445];?Rest.2d?Torts,???868;?Annot.,?Civil?Liability?of?Undertaker?in?Connection?With?Transportation,?Burial,?or?Safeguarding?of?Body?[54?Cal.3d?911]?(1987)?53?A.L.R.4th?360.)?The?right’s?existence?is?not?at?issue?here.?The?main?points?in?dispute?are,?first,?whether?a?plaintiff?must?learn?of?the?mishandling?by?observing?it?or?its?immediate?consequences?in?order?to?recover,?and,?second,?whether?close?family?members?or?friends?who?have?no?legal?right?to?control?disposition?of?a?decedent’s?remains?may?also?recover?mental?distress?damages.?As?I?shall?explain,?these?points?are?related.

When?a?plaintiff?whose?only?injury?is?emotional?distress?brings?a?tort?action,?courts?impose?restrictions?not?imposed?in?tort?actions?brought?to?recover?damages?for?physical?or?financial?harm.?At?one?time,?courts?justified?these?restrictions?by?the?need?to?prevent?assertion?of?fraudulent?claims.?(See?Dillon?v.?Legg?(1968)?68?Cal.2d?728,?735-?739?[69?Cal.Rptr.?72,?441?P.2d?912,?29?A.L.R.3d?1316].)?More?recently,?this?court?has?given?a?different?explanation.?Because?a?single?negligent?act?may?cause?emotional?distress?to?any?number?of?people,?unrestricted?liability?for?emotional?distress?would?be?limitless?and?disproportionate?to?a?negligent?defendant’s?moral?blame.?Through?increased?insurance?premiums?and?increased?prices?for?goods?and?services,?the?general?public?would?ultimately?bear?the?enormous?burden?of?paying?the?damages.?Through?taxes,?the?public?would?also?pay?the?substantial?cost?of?providing?a?system?to?resolve?disputes?and?enforce?awards.?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?644,?661-667?[257?Cal.Rptr.?865,?771?P.2d?814].)

These?considerations?have?led?this?court?to?carefully?circumscribe?liability?for?intangible?injuries.?Thus,?although?a?spouse?may?recover?damages?for?loss?of?consortium,?a?child,?parent,?or?unmarried?cohabitant?may?not.?(See?Elden?v.?Sheldon?(1988)?46?Cal.3d?267?[250?Cal.Rptr.?254,?758?P.2d?582];?Baxter?v.?Superior?Court?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?461?[138?Cal.Rptr.?315,?563?P.2d?871];?Borer?v.?American?Airlines,?Inc.?(1977)?19?Cal.3d?441?[138?Cal.Rptr.?302,?563?P.2d?858];?Rodriguez?v.?Bethlehem?Steel?Corp.?(1974)?12?Cal.3d?382?[115?Cal.Rptr.?765,?525?P.2d?669[.)?And?this?court?has?held?that?a?plaintiff?may?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress?occasioned?by?negligent?physical?injury?to?a?third?person?only?if?the?plaintiff?”(1)?is?closely?related?to?the?injury?victim;?(2)?is?present?at?the?scene?of?the?injury-producing?event?at?the?time?it?occurs?and?is?then?aware?that?it?is?causing?injury?to?the?victim;?and?(3)?as?a?result?suffers?serious?emotional?distress-a?reaction?beyond?that?which?would?be?anticipated?in?a?disinterested?witness?and?which?is?not?an?abnormal?response?to?the?circumstances.”?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?667-668,?fns.?omitted.)

To?decide?whether?to?apply?these?or?similar?limits?in?an?action?seeking?emotional?distress?damages?for?the?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?decedents’?remains,?it?is?helpful?to?examine?the?statutory?scheme?governing?the?disposition?of?a?decedent’s?remains.?[54?Cal.3d?912]

Under?the?statutory?scheme?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???7100),?one?or?more?family?members?of?a?decedent?hold?the?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?decedent’s?remains.?The?holder?or?holders?of?the?right,?in?person?or?through?another,?may?contract?for?funeral-related?services?that?are?contrary?to?the?wishes?and?expectations?of?other?close?family?members.?It?sometimes?happens?that?a?decedent’s?spouse?and?parents,?for?example,?will?have?differing?views?on?whether?the?remains?should?be?cremated?or?buried?and,?if?buried,?whether?they?should?be?embalmed?and?where?they?should?be?buried.?(See,?e.g.,?Sinai?Temple?v.?Kaplan?(1976)?54?Cal.App.3d?1103,?1113,?fn.?15?[127?Cal.Rptr.?80].)?Because?the?spouse?has?the?statutory?right,?the?spouse’s?directions?must?be?followed.?The?spouse?may?even?exclude?the?parents?from?the?funeral?services.?The?parents?have?no?right?to?be?compensated?for?any?distress?they?experience?as?a?result?of?disposition?of?their?child’s?remains?in?accordance?with?the?spouse’s?directions.fn.?1?If,?on?the?other?hand,?the?parents?procure?a?disposition?of?the?remains?against?the?spouse’s?wishes,?the?spouse?may?sue?the?parents?and?the?mortuary?for?tortious?interference?with?the?spouse’s?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?remains.?(Id.?at?p.?1112.)

When?a?mortuary?or?crematory?undertakes?to?provide?funeral-related?services,?it?assumes?a?duty?to?the?person?or?persons?holding?the?statutory?right?of?control?and?to?anyone?who?contracts?for?the?services?on?behalf?of?the?holder?of?the?statutory?right.?Although?it?is?generally?foreseeable?that?a?breach?of?this?duty?will?cause?emotional?distress?to?other?family?members?(and?also?to?the?decedent’s?close?personal?friends),?this?court?has?warned?that?foreseeability?of?injury?is?not?an?adequate?criterion?by?which?to?define?a?duty?to?avoid?inflicting?intangible?injuries.?For?example,?although?it?is?foreseeable?that?a?doctor’s?negligent?treatment?of?a?patient?will?cause?emotional?distress?to?the?patient’s?family,?this?court?has?declined?to?recognize?that?a?doctor?who?undertakes?to?treat?a?patient?thereby?assumes?a?duty?to?avoid?emotional?harm?to?the?patient’s?family.?(See?Marlene?F.?v.?Affiliated?Psychiatric?Medical?Clinic,?Inc.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?583,?589-590?[257?Cal.Rptr.?98,?770?P.2d?278].)?Here?too,?we?should?distinguish?between?those?for?whom?a?mortuary?or?crematory?undertakes?to?provide?funeral-related?services,?and?who?therefore?would?be?entitled?to?enforce?the?agreement,?and?others?who?may?be?affected?by?the?manner?in?which?those?services?are?performed,?but?who?would?not?be?entitled?to?enforce?the?agreement.?[54?Cal.3d?913]

Because?a?mortuary’s?mishandling?of?remains?violates?the?express?or?implied?plan?of?disposition,?those?who?hold?the?right?to?establish?and?enforce?the?plan?of?disposition?are?the?direct?victims?of?the?mortuary’s?wrongful?acts.?Other?family?members?and?friends?are,?at?best,?third?party?or?”bystander”?victims.

I?consider?first?the?direct?victims?of?a?mortuary?or?crematory’s?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?remains.?When?a?plaintiff?possessing?a?legal?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?a?decedent’s?remains?sues?a?mortuary?or?crematory?for?negligent?or?intentional?interference?with?that?right,?the?policy?concerns?discussed?above?do?not?support?imposition?of?a?requirement?that?the?plaintiff?have?been?present?to?observe?either?the?wrongful?act?or?its?consequences.

First,?the?danger?of?fraudulent?claims?is?minimal.?Under?the?statutory?scheme?(Health?&?Saf.?Code,???7100),?the?right?to?control?disposition?of?a?decedent’s?remains?belongs?to?the?decedent’s?spouse?or?nearest?surviving?relation.?The?mishandling?of?a?corpse?is?so?likely?to?result?in?substantial?mental?distress?to?a?decedent’s?spouse?or?close?relations?that?the?situation?provides?its?own?guarantee?that?the?claim?is?genuine.?Whatever?additional?assurance?of?genuineness?a?”presence”?requirement?would?provide?is?not?needed.

Second,?the?class?of?persons?having?a?legal?right?to?control?disposition?of?a?decedent’s?remains?is?defined?and?limited?by?statute?and?contract.?Therefore,?a?negligent?defendant’s?liability?will?not?be?indefinitely?multiplied,?out?of?all?proportion?to?fault.?Because?the?plaintiff?class?is?limited,?the?resulting?societal?costs-in?the?form?of?increased?insurance?premiums?for?purveyors?of?funeral?and?cremation?services,?increased?prices?for?those?services,?and?increased?costs?to?the?court?system?and?taxpayers-will?not?be?unreasonably?or?unacceptably?high.

Finally,?imposing?a?”presence”?requirement?would?be?tantamount?to?granting?an?immunity?from?civil?liability?for?many?forms?of?mishandling?that?by?their?nature?occur?out?of?the?view?of?the?bereaved?relatives.?Civil?liability?not?only?compensates?injuries,?it?also?serves?society?as?a?whole?by?encouraging?high?standards?of?care?to?avoid?injuries.?Society?has?a?compelling?interest?in?assuring?that?those?who?are?entrusted?with?the?bodies?of?our?dead?exercise?the?greatest?of?care.?(See?Quesada?v.?Oak?Hill?Improvement?Co.?(1989)?213?Cal.App.3d?596,?610?[261?Cal.Rptr.?769].)?Because?it?furthers?this?societal?interest,?an?award?of?tort?damages?”is?a?useful?and?necessary?means?to?maintain?the?standards?of?the?profession?….”?(Allen?v.?Jones,?supra,?104?Cal.App.3d?207,?214.)?Because?the?person?or?persons?having?the?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?decedent’s?remains?are?in?the?best?position?to?vindicate?society’s?interests,?their?actions?should?not?be?restricted?by?imposing?a?”presence”?requirement.?[54?Cal.3d?914]

The?balance?of?societal?costs?and?benefits?must?be?reassessed?when?the?plaintiff?seeking?recovery?is?one?who?has?no?legal?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?the?decedent’s?remains.?Allowing?close?relatives?or?friends?to?recover?makes?the?litigation?more?complex,?increasing?the?burden?on?the?courts?and?ultimately?the?taxpayers.?Each?additional?claimant?multiplies?the?defendants’?potential?liability,?thus?leading?ultimately?to?increased?prices?for?all?purchasers?of?funeral?services.?Finally,?allowing?all?close?relatives?to?sue?is?not?necessary?for?deterrence:?fear?of?suits?by?the?statutory?right?holders?and?contracting?parties?provides?a?sufficient?incentive?to?ensure?due?care?by?purveyors?of?mortuary?and?crematory?services.

For?these?reasons,?third?party?claims?for?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?a?decedent’s?remains?should?be?carefully?circumscribed.?They?should?not?be?barred?entirely,?however.?As?the?comment?to?section?868?of?the?Restatement?Second?of?Torts?observes,?it?would?be?incongruous?to?bar?recovery?by?a?close?family?member?of?the?decedent,?such?as?a?daughter,?who?witnessed?a?mishandling?of?the?remains,?while?permitting?recovery?by?another?family?member,?such?as?the?decedent’s?widow,?who?did?not?observe?the?mishandling?but?who?possessed?the?exclusive?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?body.?(See?also?Quesada?v.?Oak?Hill?Improvement?Co.,?supra,?213?Cal.App.3d?596.)

Adapting?the?requirements?this?court?has?imposed?on?third?party?claims?in?an?analogous?situation,?I?would?hold?that?a?plaintiff?who?has?no?right?to?control?a?decedent’s?remains?may?recover?for?emotional?distress?occasioned?by?the?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?the?remains?only?if?the?plaintiff?(1)?is?a?close?family?member?of?the?decedent?(as?defined?by?the?Court?of?Appeal?and?the?majority);?(2)?learns?of?the?mishandling?by?observing?it?or?its?direct?consequences?(the?wrong?body?in?the?casket,?an?empty?container?of?cremated?remains,?and?so?forth);?and?(3)?suffers?serious?emotional?distress?as?a?result.

The?majority?reaches?a?different?conclusion.?It?treats?all?the?decedent’s?close?family?members,?not?just?the?statutory?right?holders?and?contracting?parties,?as?the?direct?victims?of?an?alleged?negligent?or?intentional?mishandling?of?remains,?and?it?recognizes?no?class?of?third?party?victims.?The?majority?offers?various?reasons?for?its?conclusions.?None?is?persuasive.

The?majority?first?argues?that?recovery?should?not?be?limited?to?statutory?right?holders?and?contracting?parties?because?other?family?members?may?suffer?greater?emotional?distress.?This?court?has?rejected?similar?arguments?in?other?cases.?Thus,?we?have?limited?recovery?for?loss?of?consortium?to?spouses,?even?though?in?a?particular?case?a?child,?parent,?or?unmarried?cohabitant?may?have?suffered?greater?loss,?and?we?have?held?that?only?close?[54?Cal.3d?915]?family?members?may?recover?for?emotional?distress?occasioned?by?negligent?physical?injury?to?a?third?person,?even?though?others?may?suffer?greater?emotional?distress.

The?majority?asserts?that?the?order?of?priority?set?forth?in?Health?and?Safety?Code?section?7100?is?”not?a?reliable?indicator”?of?the?likelihood?of?emotional?distress.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?887.)?This?assertion?constitutes?an?unfounded?attack?on?the?wisdom?of?the?statutory?scheme.?Under?section?7100,?the?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?a?decedent’s?remains,?”unless?other?directions?have?been?given?by?the?decedent,”?passes?in?the?following?order:?the?surviving?spouse,?the?surviving?child?or?children,?the?surviving?parent?or?parents,?”the?person?or?persons?in?the?next?degrees?of?kindred”?who?would?inherit?from?the?decedent,?and?the?public?administrator.?This?order?evidently?reflects?a?legislative?judgment?as?to?the?person?or?persons?the?decedent?would?most?likely?have?chosen?to?control?the?disposition?of?the?remains,?and?thus?the?person?or?persons?to?whom?the?decedent?was?most?strongly?and?intimately?related.?Without?doubt,?the?persons?closest?to?the?decedent?will?be?the?most?severely?distressed?by?a?mishandling?of?the?remains.?Thus,?the?statutory?scheme,?although?not?intended?to?identify?those?persons?most?likely?to?be?distressed?by?a?mishandling?of?the?remains,?effectively?performs?that?function.?I?would?accept?the?statutory?scheme?as?a?rational?method?for?determining?the?individual?or?individuals?most?closely?related?to?the?decedent?and?thus?most?likely?to?be?affected?by?any?mishandling?of?the?decedent’s?remains.

The?majority?next?asserts?that?a?mortuary?or?crematory?assumes?a?duty?to?all?close?family?members,?and?not?merely?to?those?having?a?legal?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?decedent’s?remains.?To?support?this?assertion,?the?majority?looks?to?decisions?of?California?courts?and?of?the?courts?of?other?jurisdictions.

Decisions?of?other?jurisdictions?do?not?support?the?majority’s?holding.?To?the?contrary,?the?courts?of?other?states?have?recognized?that?a?cause?of?action?for?emotional?distress?caused?by?the?mishandling?of?human?remains?is?premised?on?interference?with?a?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?those?remains.?As?one?court?remarked,?quoting?an?earlier?case,?”?’The?damages?recoverable?…?are?not?for?the?injury?done?to?the?dead?body,?but?are?for?the?wrong?or?trespass?on?the?…?right?to?the?undisturbed?possession?and?control?of?the?body,?measured?by?the?mental?anguish?and?suffering?of?the?plaintiff?occasioned?thereby?….’?”?(Golston?v.?Lincoln?Cemetery,?Inc.?(Mo.Ct.App.?1978)?573?S.W.2d?700,?705,?italics?added.)fn.?2?The?following?authorities?are?to?[54?Cal.3d?916]?the?same?effect:?Burns?v.?Anchorage?Funeral?Chapel?(Alaska?1972)?495?P.2d?70,?73?(“a?claim?for?relief?for?wrongful?interference?with?the?right?to?preserve?a?dead?body?belongs?exclusively?to?the?surviving?spouse?or?to?the?next?of?kin?of?the?decedent”);?Allinger?v.?Kell?(1981)?102?Mich.App.?798?[302?N.W.2d?576,?579]?(“Under?tort?law,?recovery?for?the?intentional?or?negligent?mutilation?of?a?dead?body?is?based?upon?infringement?of?the?right?of?the?plaintiffs?to?have?the?body?delivered?for?burial?and?interred?without?mutilation,?other?than?that?present?at?the?time?of?death.?[Citation.]?Where?a?person?has?the?right?to?bury?a?body,?interference?with?that?right?is?generally?actionable.”);?Sworski?v.?Simons?(1940)?208?Minn.?201?[293?N.W.?309,?311]?(recognizing?a?cause?of?action?for?interference?with?the?”legal?right?to?the?possession?of?the?corpse?for?purposes?of?preservation?and?burial”);?Galvin?v.?McGilley?Memorial?Chapels?(Mo.Ct.App.?1987)?746?S.W.2d?588,?591?(recognizing?a?cause?of?action?for?breach?of?”the?common?law?right?of?sepulchre-the?right?of?the?next?of?kin?to?perform?a?ceremonious?and?decent?burial?of?the?nearest?relative”);?Strachan?v.?John?F.?Kennedy?Memorial?Hospital?(1988)?109?N.J.?523?[538?A.2d?346,?350]?(recognizing?a?tort?cause?of?action?for?emotional?distress?occasioned?by?infringement?of?”?’the?right?to?bury?the?dead?and?preserve?the?remains’?”);?Baumann?v.?White?(N.Y.Sup.Ct.Spec.?Term?1962)?234?N.Y.S.2d?272,?273?(recognizing?that?a?cause?of?action?for?an?undertaker’s?negligent?preparation?of?a?body?may?be?asserted?by?”the?next?of?kin?charged?with?its?burial”?and?by?those?who?engaged?the?undertaker);?Thompson?v.?Duncan?Bros.?Funeral?Homes,?Inc.?(1982)?116?Misc.2d?227?[455?N.Y.S.2d?324,?326]?(same);?Cercelli?v.?Wein?(1969)?60?Misc.2d?345?[303?N.Y.S.2d?316,?317]?(same);?and?Scarpaci?v.?Milwaukee?County?(1980)?96?Wis.2d?663?[292?N.W.2d?816,?820]?(“The?basis?for?recovery?of?damages?is?found?not?in?a?property?right?in?a?dead?body?but?in?the?personal?right?of?the?family?of?the?deceased?to?bury?the?body.”).fn.?3?[54?Cal.3d?917]

California?authorities?are?similarly?unhelpful?to?the?majority.?The?majority?cites?only?two?cases?in?support?of?the?proposition?that?a?mortuary’s?duty?of?care?runs?to?all?close?family?members?of?the?decedent.?Draper?Mortuary?v.?Superior?Court?(1982)?135?Cal.App.3d?533?[185?Cal.Rptr.?396],?was?a?lawsuit?brought?by?a?plaintiff?who?was?both?the?contracting?party?and,?as?the?decedent’s?husband,?the?statutory?right?holder.?The?court?had?no?occasion?to?discuss?standing?by?persons?who?were?neither?statutory?right?holders?nor?contracting?parties.?A?decision?is?not?authority?for?a?proposition?not?considered?in?the?court’s?opinion.?(People?v.?Myers?(1987)?43?Cal.3d?250,?265,?fn.?5?[233?Cal.Rptr.?264,?729?P.2d?698];?see?also?Brown?v.?Kelly?Broadcasting?Co.?(1989)?48?Cal.3d?711,?734-735?[257?Cal.Rptr.?708,?771?P.2d?406].)?In?Quesada?v.?Oak?Hill?Improvement?Co.,?supra,?213?Cal.App.3d?596,?the?family?members?witnessed?the?mishandling?of?the?decedent’s?remains.?They?were?therefore?entitled?to?recover?as?”bystanders,”?as?I?have?explained.

Finally,?the?majority?seeks?to?justify?its?conclusion?by?weighing?foreseeability,?moral?blame,?the?burden?on?the?community,?and?disproportionate?culpability.?The?analysis?is?inconsistent?with?this?court’s?prior?decisions.

Certainly?it?is?foreseeable?that?the?mishandling?of?a?decedent’s?remains?will?cause?emotional?distress?to?the?decedent’s?close?family?members?(and?close?personal?friends?as?well)?who?learn?of?the?mishandling.?Yet?this?court?has?denied?standing?in?other?cases?where?emotional?distress?is?no?less?foreseeable.?Parents?who?learn?that?their?child?has?been?permanently?disabled?in?an?automobile?collision?or?as?a?result?of?a?negligently?performed?surgical?procedure?have?no?standing?to?seek?emotional?distress?damages?from?the?person?who?negligently?caused?the?injury.?As?this?court?has?explained,?”foreseeability?of?the?injury?alone?is?not?a?useful?’guideline’?or?a?meaningful?restriction?on?the?scope?of?the?NIED?[negligent?infliction?of?emotional?distress]?action”?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?663),?and?”[e]ven?if?it?is?’foreseeable’?that?persons?other?than?closely?related?percipient?witnesses?may?suffer?emotional?distress,?this?fact?does?not?justify?the?imposition?of?what?threatens?to?become?unlimited?liability?for?emotional?distress?on?a?defendant?whose?conduct?is?simply?negligent”?(id.?at?p.?667).

In?weighing?the?factor?of?moral?blame,?the?proper?focus?is?not?on?the?egregious?misconduct?alleged?in?this?particular?case,?but?on?the?minimum?[54?Cal.3d?918]?requirements?for?the?cause?of?action?under?consideration.?As?the?majority?observes,?”the?tort?with?which?we?are?concerned?is?negligence.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?884.)?The?decision?in?this?case?will?become?the?”bright?line”?rule?for?all?similar?negligence?actions?involving?the?provision?of?mortuary?and?crematory?services.?I?am?unable?to?conclude?that?negligence?is?significantly?more?blameworthy?in?this?than?in?other?contexts,?such?as?the?driving?of?a?motor?vehicle?or?the?performance?of?surgical?procedures.?For?example,?it?is?not?obvious?to?me,?although?apparently?it?is?to?the?majority,?that?commingling?the?ashes?of?the?dead,?at?the?risk?of?emotional?distress?to?the?decedents’?survivors,?is?significantly?more?blameworthy?than?driving?at?high?speed?while?intoxicated,?at?the?risk?of?death?to?other?highway?users.

The?majority’s?holding?will?impose?a?substantial?burden?on?the?community?in?the?form?of?higher?costs?for?mortuary?and?crematory?services.?As?this?court?stated?in?a?related?context:?”We?cannot?ignore?the?social?burden?of?providing?damages?for?loss?of?parental?consortium?merely?because?the?money?to?pay?such?awards?comes?initially?from?the?’negligent’?defendant?or?his?[or?her]?insurer.?Realistically?the?burden?of?payment?of?awards?for?loss?of?consortium?must?be?borne?by?the?public?generally?in?increased?insurance?premiums?or,?otherwise,?in?the?enhanced?danger?that?accrues?from?the?greater?number?of?people?who?may?choose?to?go?without?any?insurance.?We?must?also?take?into?account?the?cost?of?administration?of?a?system?to?determine?and?pay?consortium?awards;?since?virtually?every?serious?injury?to?a?parent?would?engender?a?claim?for?loss?of?consortium?on?behalf?of?each?of?his?or?her?children,?the?expense?of?settling?or?litigating?such?claims?would?be?sizable.”?(Borer?v.?American?Airlines,?Inc.,?supra,?19?Cal.3d?441,?447.)

In?Borer,?nine?children?asserted?claims?for?loss?of?parental?consortium.?This?court?commented:?”Even?in?the?context?of?a?consolidated?action,?the?assertion?of?nine?independent?causes?of?action?for?the?children?in?addition?to?the?father’s?claim?for?loss?of?consortium?and?the?mother’s?suit?for?ordinary?tort?damages,?demonstrates?the?extent?to?which?recognition?of?plaintiffs’?asserted?cause?of?action?will?multiply?the?tort?liability?of?the?defendant.”?(Borer?v.?American?Airlines,?Inc.,?supra,19?Cal.3d?441,?449.)?The?majority’s?holding?in?this?case,?permitting?all?close?family?relatives?(including?parents,?sisters,?brothers,?children,?and?grandchildren)?to?recover?for?emotional?distress?occasioned?by?learning?of,?without?witnessing,?the?negligent?mishandling?of?a?decedent’s?remains,?will?multiply?liability?far?beyond?what?the?plaintiffs?proposed?(and?this?court?rejected)?in?Borer.?If,?for?example,?a?decedent?had?nine?children?(as?in?Borer)?and?each?child?in?turn?had?nine?children,?the?class?of?children?and?grandchildren?would?number?ninety?plaintiffs,?each?possessing?an?independent?cause?of?action?for?a?single?negligent?act.?[54?Cal.3d?919]

This?poses?the?problem?of?disproportionate?culpabilityfn.?4?that?has?caused?this?court?to?restrict?standing?in?past?cases:?”The?number?of?family?members?who?might?seek?damages?on?the?basis?of?a?single?incident?could?unreasonably?enlarge?the?defendant’s?burden.”?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,48?Cal.3d?644,?665.)?The?problem?is?no?less?significant?here?than?in?the?”bystander”?and?loss-of-consortium?contexts.

In?my?view,?a?weighing?of?the?relevant?policy?considerations?in?light?of?this?court’s?past?decisions?compels?the?conclusion?that?for?the?tort?of?negligence?based?on?the?mishandling?of?a?decedent’s?remains?the?class?of?direct?victims?should?be?defined?as?those?possessing?a?legal?right?to?control?disposition?of?the?decedent’s?remains,?and?that?outside?this?class?of?direct?victims?the?right?of?recovery?should?be?subject?to?limitations?similar?to?those?imposed?by?this?court?on?recovery?for?emotional?distress?occasioned?by?negligent?physical?injury?to?a?third?person.

II

What?the?majority?gives?with?one?hand,?it?takes?with?the?other.?After?opening?the?prospect?of?recovery?to?all?close?family?members?of?the?decedents,?the?majority?shuts?the?door?by?restricting?recovery?to?those?plaintiffs?who?can?show?that?their?emotional?distress?was?caused?by?”a?well-?founded?substantial?certainty”?that?their?decedents’?remains?were?”among?those?reportedly?mistreated.”fn.?5?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?902.)?The?burden?thus?imposed?by?the?majority?may?preclude?all?recovery?for?many?plaintiffs?who?would?otherwise?qualify.?Plaintiffs?will?be?forced?to?rely?on?defendants’?records?to?determine?which?bodies?were?mishandled.?If?those?records?are?inadequate?(and?it?seems?unlikely?the?crematory?defendants?kept?records?detailing?their?misdeeds),?many?plaintiffs?will?never?be?able?to?determine?whether?the?remains?of?their?decedents?were?mistreated.

In?this?situation,?I?would?apply?the?rule?that?when?a?plaintiff?establishes?tortious?conduct?by?a?defendant?under?circumstances?making?it?virtually?[54?Cal.3d?920]?impossible?for?the?plaintiff?to?prove?causation,?the?burden?shifts?to?the?defendant?to?establish?a?lack?of?causation.?(See?Haft?v.?Lone?Palm?Hotel?(1970)?3?Cal.3d?756,?772-?775?[91?Cal.Rptr.?745,?478?P.2d?465].)?Accordingly,?I?would?hold?that?a?plaintiff?may?recover?damages?for?emotional?distress?caused?by?knowledge?that?the?remains?of?his?or?her?decedent?were?entrusted?to?the?defendants?for?cremation?during?a?period?of?time?when?the?defendants?frequently?mishandled?remains?so?entrusted?to?them,?unless?the?defendants?can?prove?that?the?remains?of?the?plaintiff’s?decedent?were?not?mishandled.?This?holding?would?not?permit?recovery?”based?on?nothing?more?than?a?media?report?of?misconduct.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?902.)?Rather,?it?would?require?the?plaintiff?to?prove?that?the?defendants?actually?engaged?in?a?pattern?or?practice?of?mistreating?human?remains?during?the?time?that?the?remains?of?the?plaintiff’s?decedent?were?entrusted?to?them.?Unlike?the?majority’s?holding,?however,?it?would?allocate?to?the?defendants,?and?not?the?plaintiff,?the?task?of?establishing?which?particular?remains?were?or?were?not?mistreated?during?the?period?of?the?established?pattern?or?practice.

FN?*.?Presiding?Justice,?of?the?Court?of?Appeal,?Second?Appellate?District,?Division?Five,?assigned?by?the?Chairperson?of?the?Judicial?Council.

FN?1.?See?California?Rules?of?Court,?rule?1501?et?seq.,?and?in?particular?rule?1541(a)(4).

FN?2.?The?model?complaint?is?the?second?amended?complaint.?A?proposed?fourth?amended?complaint?(PFAC),?which?has?not?been?filed?because?proceedings?below?are?stayed,?was?also?considered?by?the?Court?of?Appeal?in?the?interests?of?judicial?economy.

FN?3.?The?action?has?not?yet?been?certified?as?a?class?action.?The?trial?court’s?request?for?briefing?on?the?question?of?standing?appears?to?have?been?made?in?anticipation?of?that?ruling.

FN?4.?Unless?otherwise?indicated,?all?statutory?references?are?to?the?Health?and?Safety?Code.?Persons?claiming?rights?under?section?7100?are?referred?to?occasionally?as?”statutory?right?holders.”

FN?5.?The?model?complaint?alleges?that?the?plaintiff?class?consists?of?at?least?6,050?members.?Defendants?state?that?the?15?coordinated?lawsuits?allege?misconduct?in?the?disposition?of?16,500?decedents,?thus?creating?a?potential?class?of?much?greater?magnitude.

FN?6.?The?standing?of?friends?of?the?decedents?to?sue?for?emotional?distress?suffered?as?a?result?of?intentional?mishandling?of?remains?was?not?raised?in?the?trial?court?by?the?allegations?of?the?model?complaint,?and?thus?was?not?within?the?scope?of?the?alternative?writ?issued?by?the?Court?of?Appeal?to?review?the?trial?court?order.?Plaintiffs?proposed?an?amendment?to?the?PFAC?which?would?name?as?an?individual?plaintiff?one?person?who?is?described?as?a?friend?of?one?decedent.?The?Court?of?Appeal?held?that?plaintiffs?could?amend?the?complaint?to?name?an?aggrieved?friend?as?a?party.

The?Court?of?Appeal?may?have?addressed?the?issue?because?the?petition?for?writ?of?mandamus?related?to?a?ruling?in?a?coordination?proceeding.?Rule?1505?of?the?California?Rules?of?Court?recognizes?that?writ?review?may?be?sought?of?orders?in?coordination?proceedings.?No?special?rules?govern?appellate?review?of?rulings?in?coordination?proceedings,?but?the?Court?of?Appeal’s?willingness?to?anticipate?and?dispose?of?issues?that?might?arise?on?the?filing?of?amended?complaints?subsequent?to?disposition?of?the?writ?proceeding?comports?with?the?purpose?of?coordination?of?civil?actions,?which?includes?the?efficient?use?of?judicial?resources.?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???404.1.)

Consideration?of?the?PFAC?was?appropriate?for?that?reason.?The?PFAC?adds?as?named?plaintiffs?individuals?who?are?representatives?of?the?various?classes?and?subclasses?identified?in?the?complaint.?The?Court?of?Appeal?permitted?amendment?of?the?petition?for?writ?of?mandate,?which?had?initially?sought?relief?on?behalf?of?an?unidentified?class?of?persons?denied?relief?by?virtue?of?the?trial?court?order?on?standing,?to?identify?the?petitioners?by?name.

We?therefore?reject?that?claim?made?by?some?crematory?defendants?that?the?mandate?petitioners?are?unidentified?persons?who?cannot?establish?that?they?have?a?beneficial?interest?in?the?subject?matter?of?the?petition.?(Code?Civ.?Proc.,???1086;?Carsten?v.?Psychology?Examining?Com.?(1980)?27?Cal.3d?793,?796?[166?Cal.Rptr.?844,?614?P.2d?276].)

Our?disposition?of?other?issues?makes?unnecessary?the?consideration?of?defendants’?argument?that?the?ruling?on?the?standing?of?friends?was?error.

FN?7.?Although?neither?Carolina?Biological?Supply?Company?nor?Gabriel?petitioned?for?review,?and?plaintiffs?did?not?identify?this?ruling?as?an?additional?issue?for?review?in?their?answer?to?the?petitions?for?review?by?the?other?defendants,?Carolina?Biological?Supply?Company?has?been?permitted?to?file?a?brief?on?the?merits?in?this?proceeding.?(See?Woods?v.?Young?(1991)?53?Cal.3d?315,?333?[279?Cal.Rptr.?613,?807?P.2d?455],?conc.?opn.?of?Baxter,?J.)?Gabriel?has?not?appeared?in?this?court.?The?company?argues?that?it?is?sued?only?on?a?theory?that?it?negligently?failed?to?discover?the?misconduct?of?the?other?defendants.?The?complaint?refutes?that?claim,?however.?It?alleges?statutory?violations,?and?seeks?to?hold?all?defendants?liable?on?agency?theories?of?recovery.

FN?8.?The?remaining?causes?of?action,?none?of?which?is?directly?at?issue?here?except?to?the?extent?that?the?seventh?cause?of?action?for?negligence?overlapped?or?duplicated?the?tenth?cause?of?action,?sought?declaratory?and?injunctive?relief?with?respect?to?written?and?oral?contracts,?and?sought?damages?for?breach?of?contract,?breach?of?the?covenant?of?good?faith?and?fair?dealing,?breach?of?fiduciary?duty,?fraud?and?deceit,?negligent?misrepresentation,?and?unfair?business?practices.

FN?9.?The?person?who?signs?an?authorization?for?interment?also?warrants?the?identity?of?the?persons?whose?remains?are?to?be?interred.?(??7110.)?The?person?who?buries?cremated?remains?at?sea?must?file?a?verified?statement?with?the?registrar?of?births?and?deaths?stating,?inter?alia,?the?name?of?the?deceased?person.?(??7117.)

FN?10.?Legislation?adopted?in?1988?makes?removal?of?dental?gold?or?silver?from?remains?without?written?permission?a?felony.?(??7051.5.)?The?theft?of?other?articles?of?value?from?a?dead?body?may?be?either?a?felony?or?misdemeanor.?(Pen.?Code,???642.)

FN?11.?We?express?no?view?on?this?holding,?but?note?that?none?of?the?contracts?for?mortuary?services?was?set?forth?in?the?model?complaint?or?attached?to?and?incorporated?by?reference?into?the?complaint.?Our?conclusions?here?regarding?the?nature?of?contracts?for?mortuary?and?crematory?services?may?be?inconsistent?with?those?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?on?this?point.

FN?12.?The?family?members?whose?right?to?recover?was?confirmed?in?Thing?were?”relatives?residing?in?the?same?household?or?parents,?siblings,?children,?and?grandparents?of?the?victim.”?(Thing?v.?La?Chusa,?supra,?48?Cal.3d?644,?668,?fn.?10.)?Observing?that?the?direct?victim?in?Thing?was?a?child,?the?Court?of?Appeal?reasoned?that?we?had?overlooked?the?possibility?that?a?grandchild?who?was?a?bystander?witness?might?suffer?equivalent?mental?distress,?and?held?that?grandchildren?should?also?be?considered?close?relatives.

FN?13.?The?restriction?of?recovery?from?the?Carolina?defendants?to?statutory?right?holders?followed?from?the?conclusion?of?the?Court?of?Appeal?that?no?special?relationship?existed?between?plaintiffs?and?those?defendants.?Plaintiffs?do?not?challenge?that?aspect?of?the?decision.

FN?14.?This?common?misunderstanding?is?reflected?in?the?opinion?of?Justice?Kennard.?The?misconduct?alleged?here?was?not?as?she?suggests,?”negligent?mishandling?of?human?remains.”?The?crematory?defendants’?conduct?toward?the?remains?of?plaintiffs’?decedents?was?intentional?and?the?concealment?of?that?conduct?was?intentional.?The?negligence?element?in?this?case?lies?in?causing?emotional?distress?to?the?plaintiffs?who?discovered?the?misconduct.?This?misconduct?is?indisputably?more?blameworthy?than?negligence?in?the?driving?of?a?motor?vehicle.?The?mortuary?defendants’?conduct?may?have?been?only?negligent,?but?negligence?on?the?scale?alleged?in?this?context?is?sufficiently?egregious?to?warrant?imposition?of?liability.?We?have?no?doubt?that?the?trier?of?fact?will?be?able?to?distinguish?an?occasional?simple?act?of?negligence?in?providing?funeral-related?services?and?to?appropriately?assess?the?degree?of?emotional?harm?suffered.

FN?15.?By?definition?a?funeral?director?is?one?who,?inter?alia,?engages?in:?”Preparing?for?the?transportation?or?burial?or?disposal,?or?directing?and?supervising?for?transportation?or?burial?or?disposal?of?dead?human?bodies.”?(Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,???7615.)

The?term?”funeral?director”?as?defined?in?this?section?and?”mortician”?are?used?interchangeably,?as?are?the?terms?”funeral?establishment”?(Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,???7616)?and?”mortuary.”?(See,?e.g.,?IFS?Industries,?Inc.?v.?Stephens?(1984)?159?Cal.App.3d?740?[205?Cal.Rptr.?915];?Mount?Vernon?Memorial?Park?v.?Board?of?Funeral?Directors?&?Embalmers?(1978)?79?Cal.App.3d?874?[145?Cal.Rptr.?275];?State?Bd.?of?Funeral?Directors?v.?Mortuary?in?Westminister?Memorial?Park?(1969)?271?Cal.App.2d?638?[76?Cal.Rptr.?832].)

Defendants?may,?of?course,?demonstrate?during?proceedings?to?certify?the?class,?or?at?trial,?that?the?contracts?into?which?they?entered?for?disposition?of?the?remains?of?plaintiffs’?decedents?did?not?contemplate?services?of?the?type?alleged?in?the?complaint.

FN?16.?See?Leavitt,?The?Funeral?Director’s?Liability?for?Mental?Anguish?(1964)?15?Hastings?L.J.?464,?477,?footnote?50,?and?Jones?v.?Caine?(1961)?31?Misc.2d?942?[222?N.Y.S.2d?563].

FN?17.?Leavitt,?op.?cit.?supra,?15?Hastings?L.J.?at?page?466,?observes?that?funeral-related?services?are?principally?for?the?comfort?of?the?living,?having?as?their?aim?the?consolation?of?the?leading?mourners.?The?expectations?of?the?survivors,?and?”essence?of?the?contract?[is]?a?reasonable?expectation?of?dignity,?tranquility,?and?personal?consolation.”?(Id.?at?p.?491.)

Numerous?out-of-state?decisions?have?permitted?actions?by?close?relatives?other?than?statutory?right?holders?and?contracting?parties?to?go?forward?against?defendants?who?have?mishandled?the?corpse?of?the?plaintiffs’?loved?one.?Some?expressly?recognize?standing?of?these?other?persons,?others?assume?standing.?(See?Carney?v.?Knollwood?Cemetery?Ass’n?(1986)?33?Ohio?App.3d?31?[514?N.E.2d?430,?435]?[direct?blood?descendant?family?members];?Thompson?v.?Duncan?Bros.?Funeral?Homes,?Inc.?(1982)?116?Misc.2d?227?[455?N.Y.S.2d?324,?326]?[next?of?kin];?Baumann?v.?White?(N.Y.Sup.Ct.Spec.Term?1962)?234?N.Y.S.2d?272,?273?[next-of-kin?plaintiffs];?Burns?v.?Anchorage?Funeral?Chapel?(Alaska?1972)?495?P.2d?70?[next-of-kin?plaintiffs];?Sworski?v.?Simons?(1940)?208?Minn.?201,?205?[293?N.W.?309]?[parents];?Cercelli?v.?Wein?(1969)?60?Misc.2d?345?[303?N.Y.S.2d?316,?318]?[next-of-kin?plaintiffs];?Papieves?v.?Lawrence?(1970)?437?Pa.?373?[263?A.2d?118,?121,?48?A.L.R.3d?233]?[nearest?relatives];?Allinger?v.?Kell?(1981)?102?Mich.?App.?798?[302?N.W.2d?576,?579],?revd.?in?part?411?Mich.?1053?[309?N.W.2d?547]?[parents];?Golston?v.?Lincoln?Cemetery,?Inc.?(Mo.Ct.App.?1978)?573?S.W.2d?700,?710?[immediate?family];?Galvin?v.?McGilley?Memorial?Chapels?(Mo.Ct.App.?1987)?746?S.W.2d?588?[children];?Strachan?v.?John?F.?Kennedy?Memorial?Hospital?(1988)?109?N.J.?523?[538?A.2d?346]?[parents];?Scarpaci?v.?Milwaukee?County?(1980)?96?Wis.2d?663?[292?N.W.2d?816,?820,?18?A.L.R.4th?829]?[family].)

FN?18.?In?a?comment?to?the?caveat,?the?Restatement?Second?of?Torts?observes?that?as?of?the?time?it?was?published?the?plaintiff?had?been?the?person?entitled?to?disposition?of?the?body,?and?in?the?absence?of?a?decision?the?American?Law?Institute?expressed?no?opinion?on?whether?under?some?circumstances?other?family?members?would?have?a?cause?of?action?for?their?own?emotional?distress.?In?an?implicit?criticism?of?the?unrealistic?limits?for?which?defendants?now?argue,?the?comment?states:?”The?outrageous?mistreatment?of?a?dead?body?in?the?presence?of?surviving?relatives?would?appear?to?be?a?proper?case?for?liability?….?But?even?when?the?conduct?of?the?defendant?is?merely?negligent,?it?is?difficult?to?conclude?that?a?widow?who?has?the?technical?right?of?disposition?of?the?body?but?is?not?present?on?the?scene?should?be?entitled?to?recover,?while?a?daughter?who?is?present,?but?has?no?such?right?should?not.”?(Rest.2d?Torts,???869,?com.?g.,?at?p.?276.)

FN?19.?We?recognize?that?the?statutory?right?holder?has?the?exclusive?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?the?remains,?and?may?do?so?in?a?manner?offensive?to?other?family?members.?(Ross?v.?Forest?Lawn?Memorial?Park?(1984)?153?Cal.App.3d?988,?993-944?[203?Cal.Rptr.?468,?42?A.L.R.4th?1049].)?This?does?not?preclude?liability?to?those?other?family?members?for?whose?benefit?the?services?were?to?be?performed.

FN?20.?Recognition?that?defendants?assumed?this?duty?to?plaintiffs?also?refutes?defendants’?assertion?that?permitting?recovery?in?the?circumstances?alleged?here?will?afford?greater?protection?to?the?dead?than?to?the?living.

FN?21.?At?the?time?of?the?incidents?alleged?in?the?complaint,?section?7151.5?(see?now???7151)?established?an?order?of?priority?of?relatives?entitled?to?make?anatomical?donations.?The?priority?parallels?that?established?by?section?7100.

FN?22.?Section?302?A?of?the?Second?Restatement?of?Torts:?”An?act?or?an?omission?may?be?negligent?if?the?actor?realizes?or?should?realize?that?it?involves?an?unreasonable?risk?of?harm?to?another?through?the?negligent?or?reckless?conduct?of?the?other?or?a?third?person.”

Section?302?B?of?the?Second?Restatement?of?Torts:?”An?act?or?an?omission?may?be?negligent?if?the?actor?realizes?or?should?realize?that?it?involves?an?unreasonable?risk?of?harm?to?another?through?the?conduct?of?the?other?or?a?third?person?which?is?intended?to?cause?harm,?even?though?such?conduct?is?criminal.”

FN?23.?Evidence?Code?section?669:?”(a)?The?failure?of?a?person?to?exercise?due?care?is?presumed?if:

“(1)?He?violated?a?statute,?ordinance,?or?regulation?of?a?public?entity;

“(2)?The?violation?proximately?caused?death?or?injury?to?person?or?property;

“(3)?The?death?or?injury?resulted?from?an?occurrence?of?the?nature?which?the?statute,?ordinance,?or?regulation?was?designed?to?prevent;?and

“(4)?The?person?suffering?the?death?or?the?injury?to?his?person?or?property?was?one?of?the?class?of?persons?for?whose?protection?the?statute,?ordinance,?or?regulation?was?adopted.

“?*?*?*?”

FN?24.?The?statutory?duty?to?bury?the?dead,?and?right?to?control?the?disposition?of?remains,?evolved?from?a?common?law?obligation?imposed?to?ensure?the?right?of?every?person?to?”a?decent?Christian?burial.”?The?right?to?compel?the?next?of?kin?to?dispose?of?the?body?is?now?an?exercise?of?the?police?power?having?its?basis?in?both?public?health?and?sanitation,?and?the?interest?of?the?state?to?avoid?the?expense?and?involvement?in?supervision?of?burying?abandoned?dead.?(Comment,?Property-Nature?of?Rights?in?Dead?Bodies-Right?of?Burial?(1939)?12?So.Cal.L.Rev.?435,?438.)

This?history?does?not?support?the?assumption?inherent?in?the?opinion?of?Justice?Kennard?that?the?Legislature?had?in?mind?the?likelihood?of?emotional?distress?when?it?designated?the?order?of?priority.

FN?25.?It?is?true,?as?defendants?claim,?that?society?has?created?other?methods?by?which?to?regulate?the?conduct?of?persons?who?provide?funeral-?related?services.?Administrative?sanctions?may?be?imposed?by?the?licensing?agencies,?the?Board?of?Funeral?Directors?and?Embalmers?and?the?Cemetery?Board,?and?criminal?penalties?may?be?imposed.?(Bus.?&?Prof.?Code,????7606,?7686,?9725-9737,?9748,?9749.5,?9789.)

The?duration?and?extent?of?misconduct?alleged?by?plaintiffs?suggest?that?the?availability?of?alternative?means?by?which?to?deter?misconduct?of?the?type?alleged?here?has?not?been?and?is?unlikely?to?be?an?adequate?deterrent.?Additionally,?there?is?no?suggestion?of?legislative?intent?to?limit?or?extinguish?civil?liability?for?such?conduct.?The?Legislature?has,?on?the?other?hand,?established?such?limits?where?deemed?appropriate.?(See,?e.g.,???7155.5.)?In?so?doing,?the?Legislature?has?expressly?recognized?and?implicitly?approved?civil?liability.

FN?26.?Because?the?crematory?conduct?here?was?intentional?and?can?easily?be?avoided?by?all?of?the?classes?of?defendants,?we?do?not?share?the?view?that?funeral-related?costs?will?likely?rise?if?these?plaintiffs?are?permitted?to?recover.

FN?27.?Counsel?for?plaintiffs?asserted?at?oral?argument?that?during?discovery?plaintiffs?have?obtained?evidence?that?will?enable?them?to?identify?many?of?the?decedents?whose?remains?were?mishandled?and?that?many?plaintiffs?suffer?emotional?distress?because?they?will?never?know?whether?their?decedent’s?remains?were?among?those?mishandled.?Neither?of?these?bases?for?emotional?distress?is?alleged?in?the?complaint.?Whether?to?permit?further?amendment?to?allege?emotional?distress?based?on?the?newly?discovered?evidence,?or?the?inability?to?ascertain?the?treatment?given?to?a?plaintiff’s?decedent,?is?a?matter?within?the?discretion?of?the?trial?court.

FN?28.?To?the?extent?that?it?holds?otherwise,?Delia?S.?v.?Torres?(1982)?134?Cal.App.3d?471,?483-484?[184?Cal.Rptr.?787],?is?disapproved.

FN?*.?Presiding?Justice,?Court?of?Appeal,?Second?Appellate?District,?Division?Five,?assigned?by?the?Chairperson?of?the?Judicial?Council.

FN?1.?Of?course,?exceptions?to?this?general?rule?may?arise.?A?close?family?member?who?is?out?of?the?country?at?the?time?of?the?decedent’s?death?or?who?is?in?the?hospital?and?not?strong?enough?to?hear?the?news?may,?in?my?view,?be?included?in?the?plaintiff?class.

FN?1.?The?holders?of?the?statutory?right?could?have?validly?consented?to?all?of?the?defendants’?alleged?acts?in?this?case,?including?harvesting?organs,?removing?precious?metals,?multiple?cremation,?and?commingling?of?ashes.?Defendants’?alleged?conduct?in?this?case?is?tortious?only?because?it?was?done?without?that?consent.?Had?defendants?obtained?the?consent?of?the?holders?of?the?statutory?rights,?other?family?members?would?have?possessed?no?right?of?action?for?emotional?distress?damages,?no?matter?how?deeply?they?might?have?been?offended.

FN?2.?In?Golston,?supra,?the?statutory?right?was?held?in?common?by?the?decedent’s?minor?children.?The?court?permitted?the?decedent’s?sister?to?sue,?as?well?as?the?minor?children,?on?the?ground?that?she?had?made?the?funeral?arrangements?(that?is,?she?was?a?contracting?party)?and?that?the?cause?of?action?she?had?pleaded?was?for?intentional?infliction?of?emotional?distress?rather?than?negligence.?(573?S.W.2d?700,?709-710.)?The?sister?was?also?a?percipient?witness?of?the?immediate?consequences?of?the?defendant’s?misconduct:?returning?to?the?grave?site?three?months?after?the?burial,?she?found?an?open?hole?in?which?her?sister’s?body?lay?partially?exposed.?(Id.?at?p.?703.)

FN?3.?In?this?paragraph?I?have?intentionally?cited?the?same?out-of-state?cases?the?majority?cites.?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?pp.?887-888,?fn.?17.)?I?leave?it?to?the?reader?to?judge?which?of?the?competing?positions?those?cases?actually?support.?In?each?case,?it?appears?that?the?parties?permitted?to?recover?were?statutory?right?holders,?contracting?parties,?or?both.

I?have?omitted?only?Papieves?v.?Lawrence?(1970)?437?Pa.?373?[263?A.2d?118,?48?A.L.R.3d?233]?and?Carney?v.?Knollwood?Cemetery?Ass’n?(1986)?33?Ohio?App.3d?31?[514?N.E.2d?430].?These?cases?do?not?discuss?standing?to?assert?claims?for?negligent?mishandling?of?remains,?but?rather?standing?to?assert?claims?for?intentional?or?wanton?misconduct.?Papieves?suggests,?without?deciding,?that?even?in?that?context?the?plaintiff?must?be?”the?member?of?the?decedent’s?family?who?is?entitled?to?the?disposition?of?the?body.”?(263?A.2d?118,?120.)?The?plaintiffs?in?that?case,?as?parents?of?the?minor?decedent,?were?clearly?statutory?right?holders.?Carney?is?the?only?case?cited?by?the?majority?that?permitted?a?party?who?was?neither?a?statutory?right?holder?nor?a?contracting?party?to?recover?for?the?mistreatment?of?remains.?Indeed,?the?court?granted?standing?to?plaintiffs?for?the?intentional?mistreatment?of?the?remains?of?their?common?ancestor?who?had?died?more?than?20?years?before?2?of?the?plaintiffs?were?born.?(514?N.E.2d?430,?438?[conc.?opn.?of?Nahra,?J.].)

FN?4.?The?majority’s?discussion?of?this?factor?is?a?classic?example?of?circular?reasoning.?The?majority?first?states?it?will?consider?various?factors?to?determine?whether?a?duty?exists.?When?it?reaches?the?factor?of?disproportionate?culpability,?it?distinguishes?the?”bystander”?cases?on?the?ground?that?plaintiffs?here?seek?relief?”for?an?injury?caused?by?the?breach?of?a?duty?owed?directly?to?each?plaintiff.”?(Maj.?opn.,?ante,?p.?899.)?But?for?those?plaintiffs?who?are?neither?statutory?right?holders?nor?contracting?parties,?and?to?whom?the?defendants?therefore?owe?no?statutory?or?contractual?duty,?the?only?potential?source?of?duty?is?tort?law,?and?the?existence?of?a?duty?in?tort?is?the?very?point?at?issue.

FN?5.?