Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08086/USCOURTS-ca10-89-08086-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 

---

FILE· 1'i., United States G J.J 

DllrtofA Tenth c· . PFeafs 1rcuu 

MAY 2 19 

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT 

llOBERT L a 

C OECI(ER 

PHYLLIS E. TALBOT, ) 

) 

Plaintiff-Appellant, ) 

) 

V • ) 

) 

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, acting ) 

through the Veterans ) 

Administration Medical Center, and) 

CHAMPION FUNERAL HOME, INC., a ) 

Wyoming corporation, and RAY LANG, ) 

doing business as Lang's Cemetery ) 

Service and Billings Crematory, ) 

) 

Defendants- Appellees. ) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

No. 89-8086 

(D. Wyoming) 

(D.C. No. C89-059K) 

Before LOGAN, MOORE and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges. 

er 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P. 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. The cause is therefore ordered 

submitted without oral argument. 

The following facts are alleged: The Reverend Arthur G. 

Bigelow died on September 15, 1986, while in the care and custody 

of the United States Veterans Administration, a defendant-

* This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall 

not be cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, 

except for purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of 

the case, res judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 

36.3. 

Appellate Case: 89-8086 Document: 01019969750 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 1 
appellee, in Sheridan, Wyoming. His remains were mistaken for the 

remains of someone else and were transported by defendant-appellee 

Champion Funeral Home to Lang's Cemetery Service and Billings 

Crematory, owned by defendant-appellee Ray Lang, in Billings, 

Montana, where they were cremated on September 17, 1986. Reverend 

Bigelow was a Baptist minister who was strongly opposed to cremation. His family, who had planned on a traditional burial, was 

quite upset by the unfortunate error and suffered emotional 

distress. 

Bigelow's widow and his surviving sons filed suit against the 

United States and Lang's Cemetery Service in the United States 

District Court for the District of Wyoming. His surviving 

daughter, appellant Phyllis E. Talbot, filed suit against the 

United States, Champion Funeral Home, and Ray Lang, in the United 

States District Court for the Eastern District of Montana. The 

two cases were consolidated in Wyoming. The district court ruled 

that Wyoming law permitted only Bigelow's widow to bring the suit, 

and dismissed all of the children. Order, June 12, 1989, R., Ex. 

43 at 7-10. Talbot appeals this dismissal, and we affirm. 

There being no relevant Wyoming decisions, the district court 

adopted the rationale of Steagall v. Doctors' Hospital, 171 F.2d 

352 (D.C. Cir. 1948), which held that a surviving spouse holds the 

exclusive right to control the disposition of a decedent's 

remains, so nobody else has standing to bring a claim for interference with the decedent's remains. The court rejected the rule 

of Boyle v. Chandler, 138 A. 273 (Del. 1927), which held that the 

surviving children also may bring suit, so long as their action is 

-2-

Appellate Case: 89-8086 Document: 01019969750 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 2 
joined to the claim of the surviving spouse. We agree with the 

district court that Steagall is a wiser decision, and that it 

better represents the choice which would be made by the Wyoming 

Supreme Court. 

We embrace the reasoning of the district court: 

"It is generally recognized that the right of burial 

belongs first to the surviving spouse if there is one; 

if not, it proceeds to the next of kin. See generally 

25A C.J.S. Dead Bodies§ 3 (1966). It follows then that 

children of a deceased have no standing to either join 

their surviving parent in a suit or bring separate lawsuits when the right of burial has somehow been interfered with. See Steagall v. Doctors['] Hospital, 171 

F.2d 352, 353 (D.C. Cir. 1948)[; accord Floyd v. Lykes 

Bros. S.S. Co., 655 F. Supp. 380, 384 (E.D. Pa. 1987), 

aff'd on other grounds, 844 F.2d 1044 (3d Cir. 1988)]. 

The State of Wyoming implicitly agrees with this line of 

reasoning by virtue of its law regarding who may give a 

decedent's body or parts thereof as anatomical gifts to 

aid in research and teaching. See Wyo. Stat. § 35-5-

102(b) (1988). Even absent thisstatute, sound policy 

reasons counsel in favor of this order of succession to 

the right of burial. Such a rule prevents forum 

shopping and other abusive litigation practices designed 

to extract damages for what many times are specious 

claims." 

Order, R., Ex. 43 at 7-8. Other authorities also support this 

decision. See,~, Lawyer v. Kernodle, 721 F.2d 632, 634-35 

(8th Cir. 1983); Kohn v. United States, 591 F. Supp. 568, 575-76 

(E.D.N.Y. 1984), aff'd without opinion, 760 F.2d 253 (2d Cir. 

1985); Restatement (Second) of Torts§ 868 comment b (1979) 

("Normally the right of disposition is in the surviving spouse, if 

any . . . . " ) . 

The rule that Bigelow's children lack standing to sue for 

interference with Bigelow's remains flows from the rule that 

Bigelow's surviving spouse maintained exclusive control over the 

disposition of the remains. The extent of that right is 

-3-

Appellate Case: 89-8086 Document: 01019969750 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 3 
. --

illustrated by the fact that Bigelow's widow had a legal right to 

choose burial over cremation or vice versa, and the children would 

have had no cause of action against her had she chosen the latter, 

no matter how much the decision upset them. We conclude that the 

exclusive right of disposition and suit remained with the widow. 

Because no legal interest of the children was affected, the 

children suffered no legally cognizable harm. 

The judgment is AFFIRMED, and appellant's motion for a stay 

of the proceedings of the suit brought by her mother is DENIED. 

ENTERED FOR THE COURT 

Stephen H. Anderson 

Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 89-8086 Document: 01019969750 Date Filed: 05/02/1990 Page: 4