Thanks for visiting! Welcome to a new way to research case law. You are viewing a free summary from Descrybe.ai. For citation checking, legal issue analysis, and other advanced tools, explore our Legal Research Toolkit — not free, but close.
Pritchett v. Booker T. Washington Insurance
Citations: 812 So. 2d 1157; 2000 Ala. LEXIS 478; 2000 WL 1678445Docket: 1990933
Court: Supreme Court of Alabama; November 8, 2000; Alabama; State Supreme Court
Dillie Pritchett and her children sued Booker T. Washington Insurance Company, operating as Zion Memorial Gardens, for negligence related to the burial of her husband, Oscar Pritchett, on July 29, 1979. They claimed that Washington's improper burial services constituted a material breach of contract and resulted in intentional infliction of emotional distress, causing them humiliation and severe emotional anguish. Washington asserted that the claims were against the operator of Zion Memorial Gardens, New Grace Hill Cemetery, Inc. The Pritchetts then moved to substitute New Grace Hill for a fictitious defendant. The trial court granted Washington a summary judgment on October 2, 1997, while allowing the substitution of New Grace Hill. Following discovery, New Grace Hill sought summary judgment on the Pritchetts' claims, which they opposed, arguing genuine issues of material fact existed. On September 9, 1999, the trial court granted partial summary judgment in favor of New Grace Hill on emotional distress and outrage claims. This was made final on September 15, 1999, under Rule 54(b). The Pritchetts appealed, and the appeal was transferred to the Court of Civil Appeals, which remanded the case for the trial court to justify the need for immediate appellate review. The trial court refused to alter its order, leading to the dismissal of the appeal on January 6, 2000. The Pritchetts petitioned for certiorari review, which was granted, reversing the dismissal and remanding for consideration of the appeal's merits. The trial court's September 15 order confirmed final judgments against both Washington and New Grace Hill regarding emotional distress claims, with costs taxed to the plaintiffs. The Court of Civil Appeals emphasized that Rule 54(b) requires judges to articulate reasons for finding "no just reason for delay." The Court of Civil Appeals frequently remanded cases lacking the specificity required by the precedent set in Brown v. Whitaker Contracting Corp. A recent review of Rule 54(b) in Schneider National Carriers, Inc. v. Tinney clarified that a trial court can issue a final judgment for fewer than all parties if it expressly determines there is no just reason for delay, without needing to elaborate on the factors considered. The trial court's summary judgment order from November 9, 1998, was deemed a final judgment under Rule 54(b). Justice Houston noted that Rule 54(b) does not necessitate detailed findings beyond the express determination regarding delay. Consequently, any conflicting aspects of Brown were overruled by Schneider. The Court of Civil Appeals had dismissed the Pritchetts' appeal without the benefit of this ruling. To prevent potential injustice from a future untimely appeal, the Supreme Court reversed the dismissal and remanded the case for consideration of the appeal's merits. The decision was unanimous among the justices. Following this, the Court of Civil Appeals affirmed the case without opinion and later denied rehearing and certiorari review.