Two families sue Mabrie Memorial Mortuary of Houston for mixing up two elderly matriarchs in a July 2014 debacle that caused one family to endure two funeral services and another to bury a severely decomposed body that had been in the wrong grave for several days.
Original Title
Lawson v. Mabrie lawsuit about botched funeral service | October 2014
Two families sue Mabrie Memorial Mortuary of Houston for mixing up two elderly matriarchs in a July 2014 debacle that caused one family to endure two funeral services and another to bury a severely decomposed body that had been in the wrong grave for several days.
Two families sue Mabrie Memorial Mortuary of Houston for mixing up two elderly matriarchs in a July 2014 debacle that caused one family to endure two funeral services and another to bury a severely decomposed body that had been in the wrong grave for several days.
MIDTOWN MORTUARY CORPORATION D/B/A MABRIE MEMORIAL MORTUARY Defendant ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION
TO THE HONORABLE J UDGE OF SAID COURT: COMES NOW Plaintiff, Bruce Lawson, complaining of Midtown Mortuary Corporation d/b/a Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, and would respectfully show as follows: I DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN
Based upon this Petition, this case should be controlled by discovery control plan Level 2 pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 190.3. II PARTIES Plaintiff, Bruce Lawson is a resident of Harris County, Texas. Defendant, Midtown Mortuary Corporation d/b/a Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, is a Texas Corporation that owns, operates and/or controls the Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, a funeral home located in Houston, Harris County, Texas. Service of process may be effected upon Defendant by serving its registered agent: Herman J ames Mabrie III, 815 Walker, Suite 1035, Houston, Texas 77002. Service on Defendant as described above can be effected by personal delivery.
10/13/2014 11:20:33 PM Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County Envelope No. 2817012 By: Cassandra Durisseau Filed: 10/13/2014 11:20:33 PM U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k 2014-59652 / Court: 269 PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 OF 9
III JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy because the claims asserted in this Petition arose, in whole or in part, in Harris County, Texas and the amount in controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of the court. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the acts and omissions complained of herein occurred in Texas and Defendant does business in the State of Texas. Venue is properly laid in the Harris County, Texas because Defendant resides in or has a principle office located in Harris County, Texas and all or a substantial part of Plaintiff's cause of action arose in Harris County, Texas. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002(a). IV INTRODUCTION
This is a suit against a funeral home, Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, for damages sustained by the Plaintiff, Bruce Lawson, incident to the funeral of his mother. The Plaintiff claims damages based on the failure of the defendant funeral home to properly perform its contractual obligation to handle and bury the body of his deceased mother in a good and workmanlike manner, and the negligence and gross negligence of the defendant funeral home in failing to prepare, handle, monitor and present his mothers dead body for funeral services and burial. V FACTS
Plaintiff's mother, Edna L. Lawson, passed away on J uly 19, 2014. Plaintiffs mother was 81 years old when she died. Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, the defendant funeral home, was contracted by the family to take the body and be in charge of those matters which attend funeral services, which include the preparation of the body for viewing, the handling of the body during U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 OF 9
the funeral services, the transportation of the body to the burial site, and then the actual burial of the body in the cemetery plot. The body of Plaintiffs deceased mother remained in the funeral home until J uly 29th, the day of the funeral. During the funeral services the Plaintiff noticed that the woman in the casket did not look like his mother and brought his concern to the attention of Ms. Cynthia J ones, the funeral director. The funeral director then affirmatively told Plaintiff, "[W]e don't make those kind of mistakes." Although Plaintiff was not satisfied with the funeral directors response, due to the sensitive nature of the occasion and the fact that many of his relatives traveled from out of town to attend his mothers funeral, he felt compelled to rely on the statement of the funeral director and allow the funeral services to continue. After the funeral services, the defendant funeral home transported the body to the Veteran Memorial Cemetery where his mothers body was to be buried alongside his deceased father, who was a World War II Veteran. On J uly 31, 2014, two days later, the defendant funeral home contacted Plaintiff and informed him that a mistake had been made whereby the wrong body was presented in the casket at his mothers funeral and they buried someone else in his mother's cemetery plot. The defendant funeral home then informed Plaintiff that his mother's deceased body was still in the back of the funeral home. After receiving this emotionally devastating information Plaintiff immediately became ill, fell to his knees and fainted. The defendant funeral home then informed Plaintiff that he had to return to the funeral home to identify his mother's deceased body and make arrangements for a second funeral and burial for his deceased mother. The negligent conduct of the defendant funeral home caused Plaintiff to endure the aggravating emotional pain of repeating his deceased mothers entire U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 OF 9
funeral service and go through the devastating experience of burying his deceased mother all over again. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional anguish caused by the defendant funeral homes mishandling of his mothers deceased body. VI STATEMENT OF CLAIMS A. BREACH OF CONTRACT Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. In addition to the allegations above, the following errors and/or omissions by Defendant constitutes breach of contract: Plaintiff entered into a valid contract with defendant funeral home to handle the funeral services and burial of his deceased mother. Plaintiff fulfilled his obligation by making his mothers deceased body available and defendant funeral home retrieved the body. The defendant funeral home breached its duty to perform its services in a good and workmanlike manner by mishandling his mother's body and failing to prepare, handle, monitor and present the body of Plaintiffs deceased mother for funeral services and burial. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional anguish caused by the defendant funeral homes mishandling of his mothers deceased body. B. NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. The defendant funeral home had a duty to perform its services in a good and workmanlike manner. In addition to the allegations above, the following errors and/or omissions by Defendant constitutes negligence: 1. Failure to timely prepare the deceased body for funeral services.
2. Failure to inform the family the wrong body was placed in casket. U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 OF 9
3. Failure to properly monitor the deceased body.
4. Failure to present the deceased body during the funeral services.
5. Failure to present the deceased body for burial.
6. Failure to handle the deceased body in a good and workmanlike manner.
7. Failure to provide necessary and proper procedures and measures for handling the deceased body.
8. Failure to take prompt action to investigate Plaintiffs concerns regarding the identity of the deceased body in his mothers casket.
9. Failure to provide competent personnel to handle the deceased body.
10. Failure to enforce reasonable guidelines to ensure the correct body was presented at the funeral services.
11. Such other and further acts of negligence as may be supplemented as a result of discovery performed in this suit.
Plaintiff would show that the incident made the basis of this suit, his injuries, and damages arose from the negligent conduct of the Defendant herein. These acts were performed with an unreasonable risk of harm which gave rise to a cause of action for negligence, which was a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and that resulted in Plaintiffs injuries and damages. C. GROSS NEGLIGENCE Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. In addition to the allegations above, the following acts of malfeasance constitutes gross negligence. Defendants acts or omissions involved an extreme degree of risk to Plaintiff. Defendant had actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded anyway with a conscious indifference to the rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant was grossly negligent because its acts or omissions in failing to ensure the correct body was presented particularly after being U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 OF 9
questioned by the Plaintiff, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable prudent funeral home, involved an extreme degree of risk that the entire funeral proceeding and burial would have to be repeated, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to Plaintiff. Moreover, the Defendant, who advertise to be seasoned in handling funerals, had actual, subjective awareness of the risk, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference to the emotional well-being of Plaintiff under the circumstances.The factor which lifts ordinary negligence into gross negligence is the mental attitude of the defendant. . . . Rhodes v. Batilla, 848 S.W.2d 833, 844 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied). D. RESPONDENT SUPERIOR AND/OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. At all times material hereto, all of the agents, servants, and/or employees for Defendant, who were connected with the occurrence made the subject of this suit, were acting within the course and scope of their employment or official duties and in furtherance of the duties of their office or employment or in a managerial capacity. Therefore, Defendant is further liable for the negligent acts and omissions of its employees and agents under the doctrines of respondent superior and/or vicarious liability. E. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES The conduct of Defendant constitutes gross negligence, which entitles Plaintiff to exemplary damages under Texas Constitution article 16, section 26. The Defendants conduct exceeds mere thoughtlessness or negligence. It indicates a conscious indifference and needless disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and his grieving family members, as well as malice. Defendant had actual awareness of the unreasonable risk that the course of action could result in catastrophic harm to the Plaintiff and his grieving family members. Defendant consciously U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7 OF 9
disregarded that risk. Defendant should therefore be required to pay punitive damages to Plaintiff in an amount sufficient to discourage such conduct in this community in the future. As described herein, Plaintiffs injuries resulted from Defendants gross negligence and/or malice, which entitle Plaintiff to exemplary damages.
VII DAMAGES As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, and Defendants acts as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered damages, and has been forced to endure anxiety, pain, and injury and has incurred the following damages: a. Actual damages; b. Pecuniary losses; c. Expenses for psychological treatment in the past and future; d. Funeral expenses; e. Medical expenses in the past and future; f. Pain and suffering; g. Mental anguish in the past and future; h. Exemplary damages; i. Court costs; j. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; k. Direct and consequential damages; and l. Other actual damages as described herein By reason of the above, Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages in a sum within the jurisdictional limits of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought. U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8 OF 9
VIII CONDITIONS PRECEDENT
All conditions precedents to the bringing of this action have been satisfied, waived or have otherwise occurred. IX JURY DEMAND
Plaintiff desires to have a jury decide this case and makes this formal request pursuant to Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216. X REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendant disclose, within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2 if they have not already. XI PRAYER
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that after trial herein, that judgment be entered against Defendant as prayed for, that costs of court be taxed against Defendant, that Plaintiff have prejudgment as well as post-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief, at law and in equity to which Plaintiff may show himself to be justly entitled, to which the Court believes Plaintiff to be deserving, and for which Plaintiff will ever pray. Respectfully submitted, / s / Shannon B. Baldwin SHANNON B. BALDWIN SHANNON B.BALDWIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC Texas State Bar No. 24034314 attorneysbaldwin@gmail.com
U n o f f i c i a l
C o p y
O f f i c e
o f
C h r i s
D a n i e l
D i s t r i c t
C l e r k PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 9 OF 9
1776 Yorktown, Suite 350 Houston, Texas 77056 t.713.664.6800 f.281.404.9021
OF COUNSEL: MELVIN HOUSTON Melvin Houston & Associates, P.C. Texas State Bar No. 00793987 mhouston@gotellmel.com 1776 Yorktown, Suite 350 Houston, Texas 77056 t.713.212.0600 f.713.212.0290