Narrative Opinion Summary
The case involves Rondal D. Akers, Jr. and Lucinda Akers suing T. Ray Brent Marsh for mishandling the remains of their son, Rondal Douglas Akers III, whose body was not cremated as promised but improperly disposed of by Marsh. The trial resulted in a jury ruling in favor of the Akerses for intentional infliction of emotional distress, while dismissing their claims under the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA) and bailment. The court upheld this decision, affirming that Marsh's invocation of his Fifth Amendment rights allowed the jury to draw negative inferences, supported by independent evidence of misconduct. The court dismissed the TCPA claim, noting that it does not accommodate emotional distress recovery absent economic loss. Additionally, the bailment claim was rejected as the deceased's body is not considered personal property under common law. The court also addressed Marsh's arguments regarding potential confusion from jury instructions and negative inferences from his Fifth Amendment assertions, ultimately affirming the jury's finding of emotional distress and dismissing the petition for rehearing.
Legal Issues Addressed
Bailment and Quasi-Property Right in a Deceased Bodysubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court dismissed the bailment claim, explaining that a corpse does not qualify as personal property for bailment purposes, although a quasi-property right exists for emotional distress claims.
Reasoning: The body of a deceased person is generally not considered property under common law, as it cannot be sold or transferred, has no utility, and is solely intended for interment or cremation.
Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distresssubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court upheld the jury's verdict that Marsh's actions constituted intentional infliction of emotional distress, despite his arguments to the contrary regarding the necessity of alleging reckless infliction separately.
Reasoning: The Akerses' claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress remains valid despite the absence of a specific reckless infliction allegation, as the necessary elements were met.
Negative Inference from Fifth Amendment Invocationsubscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court allowed the jury to draw a negative inference from Marsh's invocation of the Fifth Amendment, supported by independent corroborating evidence of mishandling bodies.
Reasoning: The Akerses provided sufficient independent evidence to support a jury's adverse inference concerning the mistreatment of the Deceased's body.
Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (TCPA)subscribe to see similar legal issues
Application: The court affirmed the dismissal of the Akerses' TCPA claim, ruling that emotional distress does not qualify for recovery under the Act without accompanying economic loss.
Reasoning: The TCPA does not allow claims for emotional distress in the absence of pecuniary damages.