University Law Case Study: Funeral Law and Ethics - Crawford Case

This case study analyzes the legal and ethical issues presented in the case of Robert H. Crawford, Sr., et al. v. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc., et al. The case involves the family of the late Robert H. Crawford Jr. suing the funeral home for failing to cremate his body as per the contract. The wife of the deceased had authorized the funeral home for the cremation and disposal of her husband's body. The plaintiffs argued misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contract, and emotional distress. The defendant claimed the plaintiffs lacked standing. The trial court dismissed the case, and the appeal was taxed to the plaintiffs. The document examines the arguments, the court's judgment, and the legal principles involved, providing a comprehensive understanding of funeral law and ethics in the context of this case. The analysis includes references to the court documents and legal databases.

Running head: FUNERAL LAW AND ETHICS
Funeral Law and Ethics
Name of the student
Name of the university
Author note

1FUNERAL LAW AND ETHICS
Topic
The topic of research is the court case of Robert H. Crawford, sr., et al. v J. Avery Bryan
funeral Home, inc., et al, case number E2006-00987-COA-R3-CV.
The Case
The case was filed on the 21st of November 2007 which was prosecuted in the Circuit Court.
The case was filed by the family, parents and siblings of late Mr. Robert H. Crawford Jr.
against the Tri-state cemetery, condemning the cemetery for not cremating the dead body of
their late descendent on the date mentioned into contract. Mr. Robert H. Crawford Jr. had
died on the 26th of February 2001. His wife, Bawery Crawford had made arrangements with
the J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home for the cremation of her late husband’s body in the Tri-
State. The wife had signed agreements agreeing upon the said terms and conditions of the
funeral house giving the house the full authorization to the cremation and disposal of the
body of her late husband with the J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home. Not only that, the
documents clearly revealed that the wife had authorized the said funeral home to release her
husband’s body for cremation in the Tri-State cremation area ("Robert Crawford, Sr. V. J.
Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc.– Courtlistener.Com, 2017). The only two signatories of the
documents were the J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home and the wife of the deceased.
It can be safely assumed that the dead body in question was transferred to the cremation
facility by the funeral home but no further news of its whereabouts were heard. The body, in
most practical circumstances might not have been cremated. It, by all chance is still among
the various remains of the other dead bodies in the cremation yard of the tri-state.
The Arguments and Judgment

2FUNERAL LAW AND ETHICS
It was stated by the plaintiffs that J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home was given the proper
authority and freedom to exercise over the cremation said dead body. The company was
contractually bound to ensure that the body is disposed off, properly in the Tri-state
cremation site and all the duties subjected to the said cremation are handled with all legality
and care. But, since the body was not cremated, the funeral house was blamed of
misrepresentation, negligence, breach of contractual duties, causing mental and emotional
trauma, intentional mishandling of a corpse and basic fraud ("Findlaw's Court Of Appeals Of
Tennessee Case And Opinions. " Findlaw, 2017).
The defendant, J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home proposed that the case be dismissed in the trial
court as it was only the spouse who stood for the claims made by the plaintiffs; hence, it was
most evident that the case lacked proper standing. The spouse was the only person who was
capable of filing a case against the defendant was she was the only one to engage in the
contract, hence, she stood alone ("Robert Crawford, Sr. Et Al. V. J. Avery Bryan Funeral
Home, Inc. Et Al., 2017). Section 868 of the law states it clearly that it is only limited to
tortuous conduct over dead bodies and not the living; hence it cannot be applied over the
plaintiffs or the spouse. The trial court, knowing the frustrations of the plaintiffs was bound
to dismiss the case and the cost of the appeal was taxed of Teri Crawford and the plaintiffs.

3FUNERAL LAW AND ETHICS
Reference
"Robert Crawford, Sr. V. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc. –
Courtlistener.Com." Courtlistener, 2017,
https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1052194/robert-crawford-sr-v-j-avery-bryan-funeral-
home-in/.
"Findlaw's Court Of Appeals Of Tennessee Case And Opinions.." Findlaw, 2017,
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/tn-court-of-appeals/1446422.html.
"Robert Crawford, Sr. Et Al. V. J. Avery Bryan Funeral Home, Inc.Et Al. -
Concurring/Dissenting | Tennessee Administrative Office Of The Courts." Tncourts.Gov,
2017, http://www.tncourts.gov/courts/court-appeals/opinions/2007/11/21/robert-crawford-sr-
et-al-v-j-avery-bryan-funeral-home-incet.