Sturgeon v. Crosby Mortuary, Inc.

299 N.W. 378, 140 Neb. 82, 1941 Neb. LEXIS 177
CourtNebraska Supreme Court
DecidedJuly 18, 1941
DocketNo. 31098
StatusPublished
Cited by3 cases

This text of 299 N.W. 378 (Sturgeon v. Crosby Mortuary, Inc.) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Nebraska Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook
Sturgeon v. Crosby Mortuary, Inc., 299 N.W. 378, 140 Neb. 82, 1941 Neb. LEXIS 177 (Neb. 1941).

Opinion

Eberly, J.

This was an action at law brought by Mrs. Hirschel B. Sturgeon, plaintiff, against Crosby Mortuary, Inc., a corporation, doing business under the name of Crosby-Carlson-Meyer Mortuary, defendant. By this action plaintiff sought to obtain damages sustained by her resulting from the alleged unauthorized dissection and mutilation of the body of her deceased husband, made by the coroner’s physician of Douglas county in the making of an autopsy in the performance of his official duties, because this autopsy thus performed was consented to and permitted by the defendant within the confines of its mortuary while in custody and possession of the body for the purpose of preservation and sepulture, and without notice to or consent of the plaintiff. At the close of all the evidence the defendant moved for a directed verdict, which was overruled. Whereupon the trial court determined that plaintiff’s cause of action was established by the proof as a matter of law, and, by the court’s instructions, the only question submitted to the jury was the determination of the amount of damages sustained by the plaintiff. The jury returned a verdict against the defendant for the sum of $3,000. Defendant filed a motion for a new trial. The court ordered a remittitur in the sum of $1,500 to be filed, or the motion for’ a new trial would be sustained. The required remittitur was filed, and the motion for a new trial was overruled. The defendant appeals.

The facts involved and surrounding the transaction under consideration include the following: Hirschel B. Sturgeon, the plaintiff’s husband, on the morning of October 11, 1937, about 8 o’clock a. m., took the plaintiff from their home at No. 2502 North Forty-eighth avenue, in Omaha, Nebraska, to the Tudor Arms Apartment at 131 South Thirty-ninth street, Omaha. She there conducted a beauty parlor. Her husband was engaged in the 'selling of typewriters and [84]*84office supplies at a down-town establishment. There is no evidence that anybody saw him alive after the completion of this morning trip. Plaintiff testifies that she talked with him over the telephone at his place of business about 11:80 a. m. About noon the same day a violent explosion occurred at the plaintiff’s home. A policeman heard the noise and rushed to the scene of the explosion. Finding the door locked, he broke through and found the body of Mr. Sturgeon in the kitchen on the floor face down. There were no other occupants in the home at this time. He carried the body outside and, finding no pulse in the body, he put in a call for the “inhalator squad,” who with the fire department came to the scene, but the man was dead. Upon the scene came firemen, policemen, the county attorney’^ special investigator, a physician, ’ the defendant undertaker, neighbors and others. A great deal of damage had resulted from the catastrophe. The explosion had raised the ceiling, blown out the windows, a closet in a bedroom blown up, entrance to a hall blown out, roof raised, and a fire within the house ignited and some damage had been occasioned thereby. No physician was attending Sturgeon when he died, no one saw him die, no one knew how or when he died, or the cause of the explosion, or what exploded. There was a cut on the dead man’s head and blood was coming from his ear. There was an odor of gas in the building in which he died. The official investigator, after a discussion with the police and others present at the scene of the death, found it impossible to ascertain whether gas jets on the stove were found open immediately after the explosion, and, if open, who had closed them. At Mrs. Sturgeon’s direction the body was taken by the defendant, Crosby Mortuary, to its undertaking establishment to be prepared for burial. The county attorney’s special investigator, as instructed by the county attorney, communicated with the coroner’s physician, Dr. Earl A. Connolly. The latter went to this funeral home, examined the body, and found it necessary to perform an autopsy to determine the cause of death, and told the persons in charge of the mortuary he would return [85]*85later. He communicated with Mr. Jaap, the special investigator, one of the men from whom he had received his instructions in the past, and returned to the mortuary and performed the autopsy at 5 o’clock p. m. He found the cause of death to be inhalation of carbon monoxide gas, and made the necessary death certificate. It is stipulated that no coroner’s jury was impaneled in connection with the case; that Mr. Jaap was the special investigator of the county attorney, ex officio county coroner; and that his (Jaap’s) duties were to make full investigation in coroner’s cases. It is fairly established by the evidence that the autopsy was performed by the coroner’s physician, acting in his official capacity, and that the same was done in a decent and scientific manner.

The contentions of the prevailing party are, briefly: That the widow of the deceased has the right to the possession of the dead body of her husband in the same condition it was in when death intervened; that an autopsy unauthorized by his widow, or by some other person having authority to so direct by law, is an invasion of the right of the widow; and that a' coroner may not order an autopsy except under the circumstances prescribed by statute and only after an inquest.

And, as epitomized by the trial court in its instructions to the jury in this case, we find the following: “The statutes of the state of Nebraska provide that when the circumstances show it possible that death was caused by negligence, violence, or any unlawful means, the case shall be referred to the county attorney for investigation and certification and he shall state the cause of death as ascertained, giving as far as possible the means or instrument which produced the death, but the statutes do not give any right to hold an autopsy without an inquest. * * * When such inquest is held and a post mortem examination is deemed necessary the coroner is then authorized to cause an autopsy to be held. The coroner has no legal right to conduct an inquest or to cause an autopsy to be held in the course of an inquest unless he has reason to believe that it is possible that the person [86]*86died by unlawful means, or unless he has been requested to do so by the widow. * * * Since the autopsy (in the present case) was wholly unauthorized and illegal, all persons who assisted, advised, aided, abetted, incited, commanded, countenanced, or cooperated in conducting the autopsy are liable jointly and severally to the plaintiff. * * * Since the coroner’s physician’s acts were wrongful and without lawful justification, the defendant who permitted the unlawful act is equally liable for the consequences.”

The correctness of these conclusions is challenged by the appellant herein as unsupported by the controlling statutory enactments and the reasons evidenced by the same.

The office of coroner, an ancient officer at common law, we have inherited or adopted from the common law of England. The powers of a coroner at common law were “in great measure ascertained by statute 4 Edw. I, de officio coronatoris; and consist, first, in inquiring, when any person is slain, or dies suddenly, or in prison, concerning the manner of his death. And this must be ‘super visum corporis;’ for, if the body be not found, the coroner cannot sit. He must also sit at the very place where the death happened; and his inquiry is made by a jury from four, five or six, of the neighboring towns, over whom he is to preside.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Related

State ex rel. Douglas Cty. Sch. Dist. No. 66 v. Ewing
319 Neb. 663 (Nebraska Supreme Court, 2025)
State v. Gill
441 So. 2d 1204 (Supreme Court of Louisiana, 1983)
Gahn v. Leary
61 N.E.2d 844 (Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court, 1945)

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)
299 N.W. 378, 140 Neb. 82, 1941 Neb. LEXIS 177, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/sturgeon-v-crosby-mortuary-inc-neb-1941.