0 оценок0% нашли этот документ полезным (0 голосов)
1K просмотров9 страниц
Two families sue Mabrie Memorial Mortuary of Houston for mixing up two elderly matriarchs in a July 2014 debacle that caused one family to endure two funeral services and another to bury a severely decomposed body that had been in the wrong grave for several days.
Оригинальное название
Deasons v. Mabrie lawsuit about bungled burial | October 2014
Two families sue Mabrie Memorial Mortuary of Houston for mixing up two elderly matriarchs in a July 2014 debacle that caused one family to endure two funeral services and another to bury a severely decomposed body that had been in the wrong grave for several days.
Two families sue Mabrie Memorial Mortuary of Houston for mixing up two elderly matriarchs in a July 2014 debacle that caused one family to endure two funeral services and another to bury a severely decomposed body that had been in the wrong grave for several days.
EVA E. KIRBY, CLARENCE I. DEASON, IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF EMANUAL DEASON, JR AND DONALD DEASON Plaintiffs
V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS
MIDTOWN MORTUARY CORPORATION D/B/A MABRIE MEMORIAL MORTUARY Defendant ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE J UDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Plaintiffs, Eva E. Kirby, Clarence I. Deason, Emanuel Deason, J r. and Donald Deason ("Plaintiffs"), complaining of Midtown Mortuary Corporation d/b/a Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, and would respectfully show as follows: I DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Based upon this Petition, this case should be controlled by discovery control plan Level 2 pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 190.3. II PARTIES Plaintiff, Eva E. Kirby, is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff, Clarence I. Deason is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff, Emanuel Deason, J r. is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Plaintiff, Donald Deason, is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Defendant, Midtown Mortuary Corporation d/b/a Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, is a Texas Corporation that owns, operates and/or controls the Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, a funeral home located in Houston, Harris County, Texas. Service of process may be effected upon Defendant 10/13/2014 11:14:21 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 2816995 By: Sherryl Dewalt Filed: 10/13/2014 11:14:21 PM 10/17/2014 12:37:09 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 2868642 By: Adiliani Solis Filed: 10/17/2014 12:37:09 PM U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k 2014-59701 281st PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 OF 9
by serving its registered agent: Herman J ames Mabrie III, 815 Walker, Suite 1035, Houston, Texas 77002. Service on Defendant as described above can be effected by personal delivery. III JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy because the claims asserted in this Petition arose, in whole or in part, in Harris County, Texas and the amount in controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of the court. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in Texas and Defendant does business in the State of Texas. Venue is properly laid in the Harris County, Texas because Defendant resides in or has a principle office located in Harris County, Texas and all or a substantial part of Plaintiff's cause of action arose in Harris County, Texas. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002(a). IV INTRODUCTION
This is a suit against a funeral home, Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, for damages sustained by the Plaintiffs incident to the funeral of their mother. The Plaintiffs claim damages based on the failure of the defendant funeral home to properly perform its contractual obligation to handle the body of their deceased mother in a good and workmanlike manner, and the negligence and gross negligence of the defendant funeral home in presenting the body of their deceased mother at the wrong funeral service and burying the body of their deceased mother in the wrong cemetery plot which required the body to be exhumed. V FACTS
Plaintiffs mother, Pearlie J ean Deason passed away on J uly 22, 2014. Plaintiffs mother was 89 years old when she died. Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, the defendant funeral home, was U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 OF 9
contracted by the family to take the body and be in charge of those matters which attend funeral preparations, handling of the body during funeral services, transporting the body to the burial site, and then the actual burial of the body in the cemetery plot. On J uly 31, 2014, prior to the scheduled funeral services, the defendant funeral home contacted the Plaintiffs and informed them that, two days earlier, the funeral home mistakenly placed the body of their deceased mother in the casket of another deceased woman and then buried their mothers body in the other womans cemetery plot at the Veterans Memorial Cemetery. After receiving this emotionally devastating information, each Plaintiff immediately became ill, suffered extreme emotional distress and extreme mental anguish. The defendant funeral home then informed Plaintiffs that they had to sign a release form so the funeral home could request the removal of their mothers body from the Veterans Memorial Cemetery. After the Plaintiffs signed the release form, the defendant funeral home had the body exhumed from the burial site at the Veterans Memorial Cemetery and transported back to the funeral home. The Plaintiffs were then required to come to the funeral home and identify their deceased mothers body. Because the body had been in the grave and exposed to the elements for over two days, it had severely decayed and decomposed. The Plaintiffs were then forced to hold funeral services for their mother with a body which was decayed and decomposed. The negligent conduct of the defendant funeral home caused Plaintiffs to endure the aggravating emotional pain of: (1) going through the devastating experience of having their deceased mother buried in another womans cemetery plot without proper last respects, (2) being required to go through the devastating experience of retrieving their deceased mothers decayed and decomposed body from the burial site after being there for over two days; and (3) being U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 OF 9
forced to go through the devastating experience of having their mothers funeral with a body which was decayed and decomposed. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional anguish caused by the defendant funeral homes mishandling of their mothers deceased body. VI STATEMENT OF CLAIMS A. BREACH OF CONTRACT Plaintiffs incorporate the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. In addition to the allegations above, the following constitutes breach of contract: Plaintiffs entered into a valid contract with defendant funeral home to handle the funeral services and burial of their deceased mother. Plaintiffs fulfilled their obligation by making their mothers deceased body available and defendant funeral home retrieved the body. The defendant funeral home breached its duty to perform its services in a good and workmanlike manner by mishandling the body of Plaintiffs deceased mother. As a result, Plaintiffs have suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional distress and extreme mental anguish caused by the defendant funeral homes mishandling of their mothers deceased body. B. NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs incorporate the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. The defendant funeral home had a duty to perform its services in a good and workmanlike manner. In addition to the allegations above, the following errors and/or omissions by Defendant constitutes negligence:
1. Failure to properly monitor the location of the deceased body.
2. Failure to inform the family the wrong body was placed in casket. U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 OF 9
3. Failure to properly keep track of the deceased body.
4. Presenting the deceased body during the wrong funeral services.
5. Presenting the deceased body for the wrong burial.
6. Failure to handle the deceased body in a good and workmanlike manner.
7. Failure to provide necessary and proper procedures and measures for handling the deceased body.
8. Failure to take prompt action to investigate the location and identity of the deceased body at the other funeral service.
9. Failure to provide competent personnel to handle the deceased body.
10. Failure to enforce reasonable guidelines to ensure the correct body was presented at the other funeral service.
11. Such other and further acts of negligence as may be supplemented as a result of discovery performed in this suit.
Plaintiffs would show that the incident made the basis of this suit, their injuries, and damages arose from the negligent conduct of the Defendant herein. These acts were performed with an unreasonable risk of harm which gave rise to a cause of action for negligence, which was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and that resulted in Plaintiffs injuries and damages. C. GROSS NEGLIGENCE Plaintiffs incorporate the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. In addition to the allegations above, the following acts of malfeasance constitutes gross negligence. Defendants acts or omissions involved an extreme degree of risk to Plaintiffs. Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded anyway with a conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiffs. Specifically, Defendant was grossly negligent because its acts or omissions in failing to ensure the correct body was presented at the prior funeral, U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 OF 9
particularly after being questioned about the body, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable prudent funeral home, involved an extreme degree of risk that the body of Plaintiffs deceased mother was mishandled, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiffs. Moreover, the Defendant, who advertise to be seasoned in handling funerals, had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the emotional well-being of Plaintiffs under the circumstances.The factor which lifts ordinary negligence into gross negligence is the mental attitude of the defendant. . . . Rhodes v. Batilla, 848 S.W.2d 833, 844 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied). D. RESPONDENT SUPERIOR AND/OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY Plaintiffs incorporate the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. At all times material hereto, all of the agents, servants, and/or employees for Defendant, who were connected with the occurrence made the subject of this suit, were acting within the course and scope of their employment or official duties and in furtherance of the duties of their office or employment or in a managerial capacity. Therefore, Defendant is further liable for the negligent acts and omissions of its employees and agents under the doctrines of respondent superior and/or vicarious liability. E. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES The conduct of Defendant constitutes gross negligence, which entitles Plaintiffs to exemplary damages under Texas Constitution article 16, section 26. The Defendants conduct exceeds mere thoughtlessness or negligence. It indicates a conscious indifference and needless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiffs, as well as malice. Defendant had actual awareness of the unreasonable risk that the course of action could result in catastrophic harm to the Plaintiffs. Defendant consciously disregarded that risk. Defendant should therefore be required to pay U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7 OF 9
punitive damages to Plaintiffs in an amount sufficient to discourage such conduct in this community in the future. As described herein, Plaintiffs injuries resulted from Defendants gross negligence and/or malice, which entitle Plaintiffs to exemplary damages.
VII DAMAGES As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, and Defendants acts as described herein, Plaintiffs have suffered damages, and has been forced to endure anxiety, pain, and injury and has incurred the following damages: a. Actual damages; b. Pecuniary losses; c. Expenses for psychological treatment in the past and future; d. Funeral expenses; e. Medical expenses in the past and future; f. Pain and suffering; g. Mental anguish in the past and future; h. Exemplary damages; i. Court costs; j. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; k. Direct and consequential damages; and l. Other actual damages as described herein By reason of the above, Plaintiffs have suffered losses and damages in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought.
U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8 OF 9
VIII CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
All conditions precedents to the bringing of this action have been satisfied, waived or have otherwise occurred. IX JURY DEMAND
Plaintiffs desire to have a jury decide this case and make this formal request pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216. X REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiffs request that Defendant disclose, within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2 if they have not already. XI PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray that after trial herein, that judgment be entered against Defendant as prayed for, that costs of court be taxed against Defendant, that Plaintiffs have prejudgment as well as post-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief, at law and in equity to which Plaintiffs may show themselves to be justly entitled, to which the Court believes Plaintiffs to be deserving, and for which Plaintiffs will ever pray. Respectfully submitted, / s / Shannon B. Baldwin SHANNON B. BALDWIN SHANNON B.BALDWIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Texas State Bar No. 24034314 attorneysbaldwin@gmail.com
U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 9 OF 9
1776 Yorktown, Suite 350 Houston, Texas 77056 t.713.664.6800 f.281.404.9021
OF COUNSEL: MELVIN HOUSTON Melvin Houston & Associates, P.C. Texas State Bar No. 00793987 mhouston@gotellmel.com 1776 Yorktown, Suite 350 Houston, Texas 77056 t.713.212.0600 f.713.212.0290