Binns v. Westminster Memorial Park
California Court of Appeal, Fourth District
171 Cal. App. 4th 700 (2009)
- Written by Lauren Petersen, JD
Facts
In 1977, Kenneth Binns’s (plaintiff) mother purchased a burial plot for Binns’s deceased father in Westminster Memorial Park (Westminster) (defendant) cemetery. Binns’s mother subsequently purchased three more burial plots adjacent to the first plot. Binns’s mother intended the additional three plots to be used for her, Binns, and either Binns’s spouse or his brother. Binns’s mother died in 1986 and was buried next to her husband in Westminster. Binns went to visit his parents’ graves in 2005 and discovered that Maria Vallejo was buried in the plot next to his mother’s that had been intended for Binns. When Binns saw that a stranger was buried in his own plot, Binns felt as though he were struck by lightning, and began trembling. He immediately notified Westminster. Westminster removed Vallejo from Binns’s plot and reinterred her in a different burial plot. When Binns learned that Vallejo’s remains had to be disturbed in order to move her to another plot, Binns felt that his own burial plot was desecrated because Vallejo’s soul had been disturbed. Binns suffered cold sweats, loss of appetite, and nightmares because of Westminster’s mistake. Binns sued Westminster for the negligent infliction of emotional distress. The trial court found in favor of Binns, awarding him damages. Westminster appealed.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Aronson, J.)
Dissent (Bedsworth, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 804,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.
