Title: Rollins v. Phillips
Citation: 554 So. 2d 1006
Docket Number: N/A
State: Alabama
Issuer: Alabama Supreme Court
Date: November 9, 1989

554 So. 2d 1006 (1989)
Frank ROLLINS and Margie Rollins
v.
Ralph PHILLIPS and Calhoun County.
88-1165.

Supreme Court of Alabama.
November 9, 1989.
Rehearing Denied December 22, 1989.
*1007 Barry N. McCrary, Talladega, for appellants.
J. Victor Bowman and H.R. Burnham of Burnham, Klinefelter, Halsey, Jones &amp; Cater, Anniston, for appellees.
JONES, Justice.
Frank and Margie Rollins instituted an action to recover compensatory and punitive damages for the unauthorized and unnecessary internal postmortem examination of their son, Jack Rollins. The named defendants were Calhoun County; Ralph Phillips, individually and as coroner of Calhoun County; and Alabama Power Company. In February 1988, the trial court entered a final summary judgment for Alabama Power Company. No appeal was taken from that judgment. In February 1989, the trial judge entered a summary judgment for Calhoun County and Ralph Phillips.
The relevant facts may be stated as follows: In July 1985, Jack Rollins, while employed by Alabama Power Company as a lineman, was accidentally electrocuted. He was pronounced dead by an attending physician at the Northeast Alabama Regional Medical Center emergency room. By way of answer to the plaintiffs' statement of their claim, Ralph Phillips admitted that he thereafter requested the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences to perform an autopsy, to which Frank and Margie Rollins were vehemently opposed. The autopsy was performed by Joseph Embry, M.D., a forensic pathologist at the Alabama Department of Forensic Sciences Laboratory in Birmingham.
The only issue presented is whether, under these circumstances, summary judgment was proper. Rule 56, A.R.Civ.P., sets forth a two-tier standard for granting summary judgment. That rule requires the trial court to determine that: 1) There is no genuine issue of material fact, and 2) the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law. The action in the present case was commenced after June 11, 1987; therefore, the applicable standard of review is the "substantial evidence rule." Ala.Code 1975, § 12-21-12 (Supp.1988).
The appellees contend that the autopsy performed upon the body of Jack A. Rollins was a lawful and authorized act and that they were thus entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.
The duties of a coroner, as they relate to the facts of the present case, are set out in Ala.Code 1975, § 15-4-2:
"(c) If the surgeon or physician is unable to determine the cause of death from an external postmortem examination *1008 and the coroner has reasonable cause to believe that deceased came to his death by unlawful means, the coroner may in such cases order any physician or surgeon to perform an autopsy or internal examination on the dead body, and report the findings of such autopsy to the coroner in writing."
Plaintiffs argue in their brief that "none of the above factors, all of which [they argue] must co-exist to authorize an autopsy, existed, it is clear that the coroner [Phillips] was without authority to order an internal postmortem examination."
In support of their position, plaintiffs place much reliance on the affidavit of Don Taylor. That affidavit states as follows:
Upon an examination of the record, restricting our review to the evidence that would be admissible at trial, we find there to be questions of fact for a jury's determination.
It is a matter of common knowledge in civilized society that close relatives and friends possess deep-seated feelings and emotions regarding the remains of their dead. The person or persons with the duty of burying a loved one have the right to see that the body is preserved and their feelings in relation thereto protected.
The same principle is espoused, but in different language, in the case of Louisville &amp; N.R.R. v. Wilson, 123 Ga. 62, 63, 51 S.E. 24, 25 (1905), as follows:
We find in 22A Am.Jur.2d Dead Bodies § 3 at 10, 11 (1988), the following observations regarding the question before us:
With regard to the question whether a coroner can be held liable for unauthorized autopsies, the following C.J.S. quotation provides an affirmative response:
25A C.J.S. Dead Bodies § 8(3)(c), at 514 (1966).
By the same token, however, a county coroner possesses statutory authority, pursuant to § 15-4-2, to order the performance of necessary autopsies. Obviously, for legitimate public policy reasons, this statute sets forth conditions and circumstances under which the State's interests override individual rights. We hold that a jury question is presented as to whether Ralph Phillips, while acting within the line and scope of his employment with Calhoun County, wrongfully requested that an autopsy be performed on the corpse of Jack Rollins.
Consistent with the above, we reverse.
REVERSED AND REMANDED.
HORNSBY, C.J., and SHORES, HOUSTON and KENNEDY, JJ., concur.