Kamphaus v. Town of Granite

510 P.3d 181

Tori KAMPHAUS, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of D.W., a minor, Plaintiff/Appellant

v.TOWN OF GRANITE, Defendant/Appellee

No. 118,984

Supreme Court of Oklahoma.

FILED MAY 17, 2022

Kelly A. George and James A. Scimeca, Burch George Germany, Oklahoma City, Oklahoma, for Plaintiff/Appellant.

Timothy Prentice, Roberson, Kolker, Cooper & Goeres, Edmond, Oklahoma, for Defendant/Appellee.

Winchester, J. ¶1 Appellant Tori Kamphaus (Mother), individually and as mother and next friend of D.W. (Son), a minor, appeals a summary judgment in favor of Appellee Town of Granite (Town). Son was injured while visiting a cemetery operated by Town when a headstone fell on him. The issue before this Court is whether Town owed Son a duty to maintain or inspect the headstone at issue. We answer this question in the negative. Town did not own or control the headstone that caused Son's injuries and therefore did not owe any duty to Son regarding the maintenance or inspection of the headstone.

FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

¶2 Town operates the Granite Town Cemetery as a benefit to the community. Town sells cemetery plots to individuals who are responsible for the burial of their decedents. Those individuals also purchase and are responsible for the placement of the monuments and headstones on the cemetery plots.

¶3 Mother and Son attended a funeral at the Granite Town Cemetery. During their visit, Son played near the graves of Amanda Bryan and James Bryan. Ms. Bryan was interred in 1918, and Mr. Bryan was interred in 1927. Son came in contact with the Bryans' headstone, and the headstone fell over, injuring Son.

¶4 Mother brought this action on behalf of herself and Son against Town for negligence in maintaining the cemetery. Town filed a motion for summary judgment. The district court granted Town's motion, holding that Town had no duty to inspect or maintain the headstone because Town did not own the headstone. It also held that Town had no notice that the headstone at issue was unsafe or posed a danger. The district court further reasoned that even if Town owed Mother and Son a duty of care, Town was immune from liability pursuant to the Oklahoma Governmental Tort Claims Act (GTCA), 51 O.S.2021, ch. 5, §§ 151 - 172, https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc. Mother appealed.

¶5 The Court of Civil Appeals (COCA) reversed the district court's judgment. COCA held that Town retained some aspect of ownership of the plot even after its transfer to the Bryans. COCA determined that the Legislature did not abrogate Town's tort liability when it authorized Town to enact ordinances regulating the operation of the cemetery and Town could not delegate the duty imposed on it regarding dangerous defects in the cemetery. This Court granted certiorari.

¶6 We hold Town owed no duty to Son with regard to the headstone placed on the Bryans' cemetery plot. Town did not own the headstone belonging to the Bryans and therefore had no duty to maintain or inspect it. To hold otherwise would impose a duty on Town (and other publicly owned cemeteries) to maintain every headstone installed in a cemetery into perpetuity. We affirm the district court's judgment.

STANDARD OF REVIEW

¶7 Summary judgment resolves issues of law, and we review a district court's grant of summary judgment de novo . U.S. Bank, N.A. ex rel. Credit Suisse First Boston Heat 2005-4 v. Alexander , 2012 OK 43, ¶ 13, 280 P.3d 936, 939. Using the de novo standard, we subject the record to a new and independent examination without regard to the trial court's reasoning or result. Gladstone v. Bartlesville Indep. Sch. Dist. No. 30 , 2003 OK 30, ¶ 5, 66 P.3d 442, 446. All inferences and conclusions are to be drawn from the underlying facts contained in the record and are to be considered in the light most favorable to the party opposing the summary judgment. U.S. Bank , 2012 OK 43, ¶ 13, 280 P.3d at 939. If reasonable individuals could reach different factual conclusions under the evidentiary materials, summary judgment is improper. Id .

DISCUSSION

¶8 To succeed on her negligence claim against Town, Mother must prove that (1) Town owed Son a duty to maintain or inspect the headstone at issue, (2) Town breached that duty, and (3) the breach caused Son's injuries. The threshold question in any negligence case is the existence of a duty, which is a question of law. Miller v. David Grace, Inc. , 2009 OK 49, ¶ 11, 212 P.3d 1223, 1227.

I. Town had no duty to maintain the headstone.

¶9 Our prior opinions establish that a landowner's duty is to exercise reasonable care to keep a premises in a reasonably safe condition and to warn of conditions that are hidden dangers, traps, snares, or pitfalls. Martin v. Aramark Servs., Inc. , 2004 OK 38, ¶ 5, 92 P.3d 96, 97. Cemeteries are different from normal businesses held open to the public; the distinction between businesses and cemeteries is the property interests associated with purchasing a cemetery plot and placing a headstone or other monument on the plot. See 14 Am. Jur. 2d Cemeteries § 31 (2022).

¶10 The general rule is that an interest in a cemetery plot is somewhat unique in that a purchaser does not acquire a fee simple interest in the plot. Id . Therefore, no formal deed is necessary to confer the exclusive right to use a cemetery plot and be free from invasion by those who would disturb possession. Question Submitted by: The Honorable Rex Duncan, State Representative, Dist. 35 , 2008 OK AG 34, ¶ 2. A purchaser of a cemetery plot instead acquires an interest akin to an easement. Id . ¶ 2. The interest in the plot vests in the original purchaser's heirs at law. Id . ¶ 9; see also 14 Am. Jur. 2d Cemeteries § 31 (2022). If the cemetery plot is abandoned, only then does it revert to the municipality. 11 O.S.2021, ch. 1, art. XXVI, § 26-103, https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc (in ch. 1, follow hyperlink titled, "Municipal Departments and Services"); see also Heiligman v. Chambers, 1959 OK 58, ¶¶ 12-13, 338 P.2d 144, 148 (adopting the rule that a plot is abandoned by not merely failing to maintain the plot or headstone but by removal of the body from the plot).

¶11 The headstone or monument is normally the property of the purchaser of the cemetery plot. See, e.g. , Brock v. Richmond-Berea Cemetery Dist. , 264 Kan. 613, 957 P.2d 505, 510 (1998) (noting that the gravestone was not the property of the cemetery). The estate, the families of the deceased, or other parties purchase and place the headstones or other memorial markers on the easement. The headstones or monuments also remain the property of the purchasers or their heirs unless the easements on which the headstones are placed revert back to the cemetery upon abandonment of the plots. See Heiligman , 1959 OK 58, ¶¶ 12-13, 338 P.2d at 148.

¶12 At common law, the obligation to maintain an easement (or a structure built on an easement) was placed on the easement holder, absent an agreement to the contrary. Restatement (First) of Property § 485 (1944).¹ The owner of the easement was also liable for injuries suffered by third parties in an easement area owing to the easement owner's negligence. Id. The majority of jurisdictions have upheld that the duty to maintain an easement belongs to the easement holder.² The most common cases where courts have upheld this duty are in cases involving utility easements, right-of-way easements, or structures built on easements; the owner of the easement was held responsible for maintaining the easement or the structure built on the easement and not the landowner. See supra note 2.

¶13 The duty of an easement holder to maintain a structure built on an easement parallels the duty of the purchaser of a cemetery plot to maintain a headstone placed on the plot. The Kentucky Supreme Court explained this concept in City of Versailles v. Johnson , 636 S.W.3d 480, 484 (Ky. 2021) (noting a cemetery plot conferred different duties depending on whether the monument was implicated). The Johnson court affirmed summary judgment for the city, holding the city-owned cemetery did not owe a duty to a plaintiff injured by a fallen headstone that the cemetery did not own. Id . The court explained that the plaintiff was not harmed by anything under the cemetery's control, like a pathway in disrepair or a fallen tree or other debris. Id . Instead, she was injured by a headstone owned by the purchaser of the cemetery plot. The Kentucky Supreme Court concluded that the city did not owe the plaintiff a duty. Id . We agree with the Johnson court's analysis.

¶14 Town only provided routine maintenance to the common areas of the cemetery (such as roadways, fences, and shrubbery) and mowing services. Although Town operated the cemetery and provided such services, Town had no property interest in the headstone placed on an easement belonging to the Bryans. Consequently, Town owed no duty in maintaining the headstone. See, e.g. , Brock , 957 P.2d at 510 (noting that the gravestone was not the property of the cemetery although the cemetery accepted some duties concerning the maintenance and inspection of the gravestone); Melancon v. Zoar Missionary Baptist Church , 222 So.2d 308, 310 (La. 1969) (finding the owner was not responsible for maintaining the headstone that injured a child, although the owner performed groundskeeping duties on the premises).

¶15 Town was not statutorily required to maintain the headstone. The Oklahoma Legislature required Town to provide the "grading, fencing, ornamenting, and improving" of the cemetery grounds acquired by Town and the avenues leading to the cemetery. 11 O.S.2021, ch. 1, art. XXVI, § 26-102, https://govt.westlaw.com/okjc. The Legislature gave the discretion to Town to construct walks and to plant and protect ornamental trees and shrubs. Id . The Legislature also gave Town authority to enact its own ordinances to regulate, protect, and govern the cemetery and the owners of the cemetery plots, including enacting ordinances for the establishment of monuments and...