White v. DT Williams, LLC

1

TANYA WHITE v. DT WILLIAMS, LLC D/B/A WILLIAMS FUNERAL HOME

No. 2022 CA 1145

Court of Appeals of Louisiana, First Circuit

June 2, 2023

Appealed from the Twenty-Second Judicial District Court Parish of St. Tammany State of Louisiana Docket Number 2019-12247 Division E The Honorable William H. Burris Presiding Judge

Robert P. Kemp Madisonville, LA Counsel for Appellant Plaintiff-Tanya White

Jude H. Trahant, Jr. Madisonville, LA Counsel for Appellees Defendants-DT Williams, LLC d/b/a Williams Funeral Home

Before: Welch, Penzato, and Lanier, JJ.

WELCH J.

In this action for damages, the plaintiff, Tanya White, appeals a trial court judgment granting a motion for summary judgment filed by the defendant, DT Williams LLC d/b/a Williams Funeral Home ("Williams"), and dismissing Ms White's claims against Williams with prejudice. Based on our de novo review of the undisputed material facts, we find the contractual waiver of liability signed by Ms. White to be valid and enforceable, thus entitling Williams to judgment as a matter of law dismissing Ms. White's claim. Accordingly, we affirm the judgment of the trial court.

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

On May 1, 2019, Ms. White commenced this proceeding, seeking damages that resulted from viewing her father's body in a decomposed state while it was under the care of Williams. According to Ms. White's petition, her father, Richard White, passed away on or about Friday, May 4, 2018, and his body was subsequently entrusted to Williams by Mr. White's sister, Kathy White. Ms. White alleged that after Williams discovered Ms. White was the proper next of kin, a meeting was arranged at the funeral home for 11:00 a.m. the following Monday, May 7, 2018; however, Ms. White arrived approximately two hours before the appointment.

Ms. White further alleged that upon arrival, she noticed that the doors were propped open, and she immediately noticed a "very strong and foul odor" in the building. Ms. White claimed that upon being informed that her father's body had decomposed, and thus was the source of the odor, she demanded to see her father's body immediately; however, Williams' employees attempted to dissuade her from viewing her father's remains as they were not ready for viewing. Eventually, Williams acquiesced, but required Ms. White to sign a waiver that released Williams from any liability for viewing the remains of her father and advised her that, in their professional opinion, Mr. White's remains should not be viewed. After signing the waiver, Ms. White viewed Mr. White's remains and alleged that his body was swollen and deteriorated beyond recognition. Accordingly, Ms. White sought damages for her emotional, psychological, and other related injuries, which resulted from her viewing the allegedly mishandled remains of her father.

In response to Ms. White's petition Williams filed an answer that generally denied Ms. White's allegations and asserted several defenses, including the affirmative defense that Ms. White was precluded from recovery because she signed the contractual waiver releasing Williams from liability. On November 20, 2020, Williams filed its first motion for summary judgment seeking dismissal of Ms. White's claims. First, Williams claimed that Ms. White could not prove negligence or fault on the part of Williams because she could not prove that Williams violated any of Louisiana's statutes, rules, or regulations pertaining to its handling of Mr. White's remains. Williams cited to the determination by the Louisiana State Board of Embalmers and Funeral Directors ("the Board") that there had been no violation on the part of Williams in support of their argument. Alternatively, Williams argued that Ms. White was precluded from recovery because she signed a contractual waiver of liability for injuries that could arise from her viewing of Mr. White's remains.^[1]

In opposition to Williams' motion for summary judgment, Ms. White argued that there were genuine issues of material fact regarding the timing of Mr. White's death. She also challenged the Board's conclusion that there were no violations of Louisiana law, specifically claiming that Williams violated La. R.S. 37:848(D)(2-3), which provide that "if [a] body is to be held by a funeral establishment longer than thirty hours after the time of death," the body must "be embalmed," "refrigerated continuously at a temperature not to exceed forty-five degrees Fahrenheit" or otherwise properly disposed of within a certain period of time. Lastly, Ms. White admitted that, although there was no genuine issue of material fact as to her signing the contractual waiver of liability, she argued that it was, nevertheless, absolutely null pursuant to La. C,C. art. 2004 or otherwise unenforceable because it was ambiguous and/or was a contract of adhesion.

At the hearing on March 3, 2021, the trial court denied the motion for summary judgment due to the facts -both as to the condition of Mr. White's body and when it was discovered-being incomplete and conflicting. Williams then amended its answer to assert the affirmative defense of immunity from liability. Following Ms. White's deposition in July 2021 and Williams' amendment of its answer, Williams filed a second motion for summary judgment on March 1, 2022.

In Williams' second motion for summary judgment, Williams sought summary judgment dismissing Ms. White's claims on the basis of immunity from liability pursuant to La. R.S. 37:855(B), which provides funeral directors, funeral establishments, and any respective employee thereof with immunity for following the directions or relying on representations made by persons representing themselves to be the proper person for arranging funeral goods and services for the remains of a decedent.^[2] In the alternative, Williams again urged that there was no genuine issue of material fact as to whether Ms. White signed the contractual waiver of liability, thus precluding her from any recovery for injuries she allegedly sustained as a result of viewing her father's remains.

In opposition to Williams' second motion for summary judgment, Ms. White argued that Williams was not entitled to summary judgment as a matter of law because the statutory immunity cited by Williams-La. R.S. 37.855(B)-was inapplicable, because Williams' duty to take adequate care of her father's remains was imposed by law, not by representation of someone claiming to have the authority to arrange funeral goods or services. Although not raised as an issue by Williams in its motion for summary judgment, out of an abundance of caution, Ms. White also challenged the applicability of La. R.S. 37:855(C),^[3] which provides immunity from liability for a funeral establishment or employee thereof for permitting any interested person to view human remains in the care of the funeral establishment, as unconstitutional. Ms. White opposed the validity of the contractual waiver of liability on the same grounds in her original opposition-that it was absolutely null under La. C.C. art. 2004, that it was ambiguous, and that it was adhesionary.

After a hearing on June 1, 2022, the trial court granted the motion for summary judgment and dismissed Ms. White's claims against Williams. In written reasons for judgment issued by the trial court on June 16, 2022, the trial court found that the documents offered on summary judgment established that Ms. White was repeatedly warned not to view her father's body and was advised of the condition of his remains prior to signing the contractual waiver releasing Williams from liability arising out of viewing the body and that the contractual waiver of liability signed by Ms. White was valid. The trial court farther found the documents also established that all of Ms. White's alleged damages or injuries were derived from viewing her father's remains, and she was, therefore, precluded from recovering those damages from Williams pursuant to the contractual waiver of liability. A judgment in accordance with the trial court's ruling, granting Williams's motion for summary judgment and dismissing all of Ms. White's claims against Williams, was signed on July 11, 2022. It is from this judgment that Ms. White appeals.

ASSIGNMENTS OF ERROR

On appeal, Ms. White contends that the trial court erred in granting Williams' motion for summary judgment because the contractual waiver of liability was null pursuant to La. C.C. art. 2004. She alternatively claims that it was unenforceable because it was ambiguous and/or a contract of adhesion.^[4]

LAW AND DISCUSSION

Summary Judgment

The summary judgment procedure is favored and "is designed to secure the just, speedy, and inexpensive determination of every action ... and shall be construed to accomplish these ends." Jackson v. Wise, 2017-1062 (La.App 1^stCir. 4/13/18), 249 So.3d 845, 850, writ denied, 2018-0785 (La. 9/21/18), 252 So.3d 914 (quoting La. C.C.P. art 966(A)(2)). After an opportunity for adequate discovery, a motion for summary judgment shall be granted if the motion, memorandum, and supporting documents show that there is no genuine issue as to material fact and that the mover is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. La. C.C.P. art. 966(A)(3).

A "genuine issue" is triable, meaning that reasonable people could disagree. Smith v. Our Lady of the Lake Hosp., Inc., 93-2512 (La. 7/5/94), 639 So.2d 730, 751. In other words, if reasonable persons could only reach one conclusion, then a trial is unnecessary for that issue. Id., A fact is "material" if it potentially insures or precludes recovery, affects a litigant's ultimate success, or determines the outcome of a legal dispute. South Louisiana Bank v. Williams, 591 So.2d 375, 377 (La.App 3^rd Cir. 1991), writ denied, 596 So.2d 211 (La...