1. Page 1 of 3
Marika Phillips
5/9/15
UCI – Legal Writing
IRAC of Christensen v. Superior Court
Issue:
“Whether persons other than those who contract for the services of mortuaries and
crematoria or [persons who] 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.”
Rule:
1. “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.
e. The public administrator when the deceased has sufficient assets.’”

2. Page 2 of 3
2. “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…’”
Analysis:
Plaintiffs comprise a class of individuals, who are either related to or have some close
association with the decedent. Plaintiffs contracted with defendants, the defendants being the
mortuary and crematorium involved with disposing of the decedents’ remains. Other defendants
included those from a biology supply company, which purchased human organs and body parts
from the same crematory. Plaintiffs alleged misconduct, in that the defendants mishandled the
decedent’s remains. Further, plaintiffs claimed that defendants mutilated and commingled human
remains, as well as improper cremation. The plaintiffs did not actually witness these acts, but
discovered the alleged misconduct, through public media reports, all released around February,
1987.
Trial court held 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.”
But the Court of Appeals broadened such class of plaintiffs, to include others who are not
necessarily covered under Section 7100. For a relative, estranged from the deceased, can not
necessarily claim emotional distress any more so than a long time business partner, court

3. Page 3 of 3
reasoned. However, with respect to the intentional infliction of emotional distress charges, the
Supreme Court ruled that not all plaintiffs in this case were entitled to recovery – given that the
defendants’ reckless disregard of the probability of causing emotional distress was not
specifically directed at all plaintiffs. Court held that although the ability to foresee any harm or
emotional distress was evident, the defendants’ intention, to cause the distress, was not.
Additionally, the defendants owed a duty to the close relatives of the deceased, who knew that
funeral and crematory services were being performed. If all other plaintiffs could sue for
emotional distress, then the lawsuits pursuing such damages would be endless in number.
Although the California Supreme Court agreed on the position of the Court of Appeals –
“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 of those who contract for disposition”– it disagreed with the Court of Appeals, on how
far to extend the right to recover for emotional distress.
Conclusion
The California Supreme Court ruled that the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be
modified to include Supreme Court’s ruling. Plaintiffs who had not witnessed the alleged
mishandling of the decedent’s remains could not sue for intentional infliction of emotional
distress.