Superior Court of Santa Clara County

Procedural Posture

Appellants, relatives of the deceased, challenged orders of the Superior Court of Santa Clara County (California), sustaining the demurrer's of respondents, county and mortuary, and dismissing appellants' cause of action for negligence with prejudice.

Overview

Respondent county released the wrong body to respondent mortuary and the body was interred in spite of the protests of appellants, relatives of the deceased. Appellants sued for negligence and alleged the respondents' actions coupled with their callous treatment of appellants, caused great emotional disturbance. The court held that the proper test for analyzing the extent of respondents' duty was based on foreseeability of injury. In so holding, the court found that respondents knew or reasonably should have known that the surviving friends and relatives were emotionally vulnerable and that their actions in ridiculing them would likely cause injury. Although the court found a duty, the court declined to extend the right to recover to a large class of plaintiffs. The court held that only close family members could recover damages for negligent handling of a corpse. The court reversed the judgment on the pleadings favoring respondents as to the claim of negligent mishandling of a corpse and required the trial court to permit appellants to have an opportunity to amend their pleadings to show that it was foreseeable that respondents' actions would cause them damage.

Outcome: responding to EEOC charges

The court reversed the judgment dismissing with prejudice the claim of appellants, relatives of the deceased, for negligent handling of a corpse and remanded with leave to amend the pleadings because respondents, county and mortuary, had a duty to the surviving relatives and appellants should be afforded the opportunity to show that it was foreseeable that respondents' actions would cause them damage.

Procedural Posture

Appellant, a condominium owners association, sought to intervene in a construction defect action between respondents, a homeowners association and a developer, on the ground that it had an interest in subject property, common facilities that were jointly used and maintained by the two associations. The Superior Court of Santa Clara County, California, denied the motion for leave to intervene, and appellant sought review.

Overview

The reviewing court held that appellant was not entitled to mandatory intervention under Code Civ. Proc., § 387, subd. (b), because it did not show that the disposition of the action in its absence would impair its ability to protect that interest. Its interest in the repair of joint common facilities arose from a joint use and maintenance agreement between the associations, which obligated appellant to fund 48 percent of repair and maintenance costs for the joint common facilities and the other association to fund 52 percent. The respective obligations were therefore independent of the issues in the construction defect action. Moreover, a judgment in the construction defect action would have had no effect on appellant's ability to protect its interest. The status of appellant as a joint obligor on the agreement did not entitle it to joinder as an indispensable party because the underlying action was not brought to enforce that joint liability. Finally, the motion for leave to intervene failed to satisfy two requirements for discretionary intervention under § 387, subdivision (a): that there be direct interest in the litigation and that intervention not enlarge the issues.

Outcome

The court affirmed the order denying the motion for leave to intervene.