Court Opinion

ID: 9749457
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-27 16:44:20.950836+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:25:49.221621
License: Public Domain

*771CROSKEY, Acting P. J., Dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
The majority relies on Conroy v. Regents of University of California (2009) 45 Cal.4th 1244 [91 Cal.Rptr.3d 532, 203 P.3d 1127] (Conroy) in holding that representations made to plaintiffs concerning the use and disposition of the decedent’s body created no duty of care as a matter of law. I believe that Conroy does not support the majority’s holding and is not dispositive as to the existence or nonexistence of a duty of care arising from representations made outside of the donation agreement.
The decedent in Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, signed an agreement donating his body to the Willed Body Program at the University of California at Irvine (UCI). The agreement stated that the donation was “ ‘for teaching purposes, scientific research, or such purposes as the said University or its authorized representative shall in their sole discretion deem advisable.’ ” (Id. at pp. 1247-1248.) It also stated, “ ‘that final disposition of my body by UCI shall be in accordance with the State Code.’ ” {Id. at p. 1248.) The agreement contained no other express limitation on the use or disposition of the decedent’s body. The plaintiff alleged that UCI’s agents had promised to return the remains to her {id. at p. 1248; see also id. at p. 1253), and that they had represented that the donated body “would be used for research and teaching purposes (and not for gain or profit) and that the body would at all times be handled in a respectful and dignified manner” (id. at p. 1256). The plaintiff also presented evidence in opposition to the defendant’s summary judgment motion that the director of the Willed Body Program had orally represented to her before her husband signed the donation agreement that his body would be cremated and the ashes scattered at sea, that the family would be notified so they could take part in the ceremony, and that she and her husband’s physician would be notified of the medical findings pertaining to her husband’s body. (Id. at pp. 1247-1248.)
Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, addressed several potential bases for negligence liability in reviewing the summary judgment, including liability based on (1) the use of donated bodies in private, for-profit tutoring classes; (2) the sale of body parts for profit; (3) the failure to ensure that use of the donated bodies conformed with the purpose of the donation; (4) the failure to return the remains to plaintiff; (5) the failure to notify plaintiff of the scattering of ashes; (6) the failure to maintain adequate records to ensure that the bodies were used in accordance with the purpose of the donation; and (7) the failure to dispose of the remains in a manner that would not shock the sensibilities of surviving family members. Conroy did not hold with respect to any of these bases for liability that a representation made outside of the donation agreement created no duty of care as a matter of law. Instead, Conroy disposed of each basis for negligence liability on some other ground:
*772Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, concluded that the plaintiff could not establish liability based on the use of donated bodies in private tutoring classes, sale of body parts for profit, or failure to ensure that use of the donated bodies conformed with the purpose of the donation because there was no evidence of causation, in that there was no evidence in the record that the decedent’s body in particular was used in a private tutoring class, dismembered for profit, or otherwise mishandled (i.e., no causation).1 (Conroy, at pp. 1251-1252.) Conroy concluded that the plaintiff could not establish liability based on the failure to return the remains because the donation agreement did not state that the remains would be returned to the plaintiff, and the plaintiffs own declaration showed that no such representation was made outside of the donation agreement (i.e., no representation). (Id. at p. 1253.)
Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, concluded that the plaintiff could not establish liability based on the failure to notify her of the scattering of ashes because she failed to allege that theory of liability in her complaint. (Id. at pp. 1253-1254.) Conroy stated that to the extent the alleged duty to maintain adequate records was based on a duty to return the remains, the absence of a duty to return the remains defeated the claim. (Id. at p. 1254.) Conroy stated that to the extent the alleged duty to maintain adequate records was not based on a duty to return the remains, there was no basis for such a duty either in the donation agreement or under the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (former Health & Saf. Code, §§ 7150-7156.5), and such a duty would be inconsistent with the rights granted to UCI in the donation agreement.2 (Conroy, supra, at pp. 1254-1255.)
Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, also rejected the argument that the donation itself created a duty to dispose of the remains in a manner that would not shock the sensibilities of surviving family members.3 As the statutory right holder, UCI had the exclusive right to control the disposition of the decedent’s body, limited only by the provision in the donation agreement that the disposition “ ‘shall be in accordance with the State *773Code.’ ” (Conroy, at p. 1255.) The Legislature had exempted UCI and other medical schools, hospitals, and public institutions from the Funeral Directors and Embalmers Law (Bus. & Prof. Code, § 7609), and state law imposed no duty on UCI to conduct its teaching and research in a manner that would “safeguard the sensibilities of the surviving family members.” (Conroy, supra, at p. 1255.)
Thus, Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, did not hold with respect to any of the alleged bases for negligence liability discussed in the majority opinion that only representations made in the donation agreement could create a duty of care as a matter of law. Several of the alleged bases for negligence liability arose in whole or in part from representations made outside of the donation agreement. Conroy never stated that such representations could not create a duty of care as a matter of law, but instead found other reasons to affirm the summary judgment.4 I believe that the majority’s characterization of Conroy as holding that representations made outside of the donation agreement created no duty of care as a matter of law is simply not supported by anything that the Supreme Court actually said or held in Conroy.
I also find no support for the majority’s conclusion of no duty in Health and Safety Code section 7100.1, subdivision (a) (see maj. opn., ante, at p. 767), which states that if certain requirements are met, the directions provided by a decedent as to the disposition of his or her remains “may not be altered, changed, or otherwise amended in any material way, except as may be required by law, and shall be faithfully carried out upon his or her death.” That the remains must be disposed of as directed by the decedent does not mean that a donee cannot be held liable in tort for damages resulting from unfulfilled promises or representations. (Cf. Christensen, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 891, fn. 19.)5 An award of damages in these circumstances would in no way amend the donation agreement or affect the disposition of the remains. The question here is not whether representations made by defendant’s agents can be specifically enforced despite the rights granted to defendant under the donation agreement, but whether defendant can be liable in tort for emotional distress caused by those representations.
*774The majority also relies in part on the statement in Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th at page 1257, that the representations did not cause the plaintiff to alter her legal relations with UCI. (Maj. opn., ante, at p. 767.) This statement concerns the element of reliance and appears in the part of Conroy discussing fraud and negligent misrepresentation, rather than the part of the opinion discussing negligence. (Conroy, supra, at pp. 1256-1257.) Reliance is not an essential element of a negligence cause of action. (Merrill v. Navegar, Inc. (2001) 26 Cal.4th 465, 500 [110 Cal.Rptr.2d 370, 28 P.3d 116].) The absence of reliance as required to establish liability for deceit does not preclude the existence of a duty of care for purposes of negligence liability.
Damages for severe emotional distress may be recovered in a negligence action if the defendant assumed a duty of care to the plaintiff in which the emotional condition of the plaintiff was an object, a duty is imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or a duty arises out of a special relationship between the two. (Potter v. Firestone Tire & Rubber Co. (1993) 6 Cal.4th 965, 985 [25 Cal.Rptr.2d 550, 863 P.2d 795]; Burgess v. Superior Court (1992) 2 Cal.4th 1064, 1073 [9 Cal.Rptr.2d 615, 831 P.2d 1197].) Defendant here assumed a duty to plaintiff’s close relatives by making representations concerning the use and disposal of the decedent’s donated body. In these circumstances, consideration of the factors set forth in Rowland v. Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 113 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561], supports the existence of a duty to avoid negligently causing emotional harm arising from representations made outside of the donation agreement.
It was clearly foreseeable that plaintiffs would suffer severe emotional distress if they learned that their decedent’s donated body was used and disposed of in a manner contrary to the representations allegedly made to them. The moral blame of making such inaccurate representations or failing to ensure that the donated body was used and disposed of as represented is substantial. The imposition of a duty of care would discourage similar misconduct in the future and therefore would further the policy of preventing future harm. The burden on a donee to ensure the accuracy of representations made to close family members concerning the use and disposal of a donated human body or to ensure that the donated body is used and disposed of as represented would not be so great as to suggest that the imposition of a duty of care would be inappropriate. Moreover, there is no indication that the imposition of a duty would significantly impair the ability of a donee to obtain donated bodies for medical research or that the community would suffer as a result. Finally, it seems likely that insurance would be available to protect a donee from liability for negligence in these circumstances.
*775I therefore conclude that defendant owed plaintiff a duty of care and is not entitled to summary adjudication of the negligence count based on the absence of a duty of care. In my view, the denial of the summary judgment motion was proper.
The petition of real parties in interest for review by the Supreme Court was denied June 23, 2010, S182748.

 Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, reaffirmed the need to establish a direct causal connection between the defendant’s misconduct and the plaintiff’s injury and “ ‘a well-founded substantial certainty that [the plaintiffs] decedent’s remains were among those reportedly mistreated.’ ” (Id. at p. 1251, quoting Christensen v. Superior Court (1991) 54 Cal.3d 868, 902 [2 Cal.Rptr.2d 79, 820 P.2d 181] (Christensen).)

 The plaintiff in Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, did not allege that UCI had represented that it would maintain adequate records, so Conroy did not discuss whether such a representation could create a duty of care.

 The plaintiff in Conroy, supra, 45 Cal.4th 1244, did not allege that UCI had represented that it would dispose of the remains in a manner that would not shock the sensibilities of surviving family members. Conroy therefore did not discuss whether such a representation could create a duty of care.

 Melican v. Regents of University of California (2007) 151 Cal.App.4th 168 [59 Cal.Rptr.3d 672], which also involved UCI’s Willed Body Program, is also distinguishable. Melican held that the defendant, in voluntarily returning the decedent’s cremated remains, had no duty to ensure that the remains were not commingled with those of other decedents. (Id. at pp. 180-181.) The plaintiffs in Melican did not allege that UCI had represented that the remains would be segregated (see id. at p. 180), and Melican did not discuss whether such a representation could create a duty of care.

 “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. [Citation.] This does not preclude liability to those other family members for whose benefit the services were to be performed.” (Christensen, supra, 54 Cal.3d at p. 891, fn. 19.)