Cochran v. Securitas Security Services USA, Inc.
93 N.E.3d 493
| Ill. | 2017Background
- Walter Cochran died and his body was sent to Memorial Medical Center for autopsy; Securitas employees received and stored the body in a Ziegler case without visible identification and logged it under the wrong name.
- Relying on the erroneous log, Securitas released Walter’s body to Butler Funeral Home, which cremated it; no autopsy or cause of death was ever obtained.
- Donna Cochran (Walter’s mother and estate administrator) sued Securitas (and others); after settling with the other defendants she filed a third amended complaint alleging tortious interference with her right to possess the corpse and sought emotional distress and related damages.
- Securitas moved to dismiss under sections 2-615 and 2-619, arguing among other things that Cochran failed to plead a duty and that recovery requires wilful and wanton misconduct rather than ordinary negligence.
- The trial court granted dismissal; the appellate court reversed, holding that ordinary negligence suffices for this tort and that Cochran’s complaint sufficiently alleged duty, breach, and proximate emotional harms.
- The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed the appellate court: it held interference with the right to possess a corpse is an independent tort and emotional-distress damages are recoverable on proof of ordinary negligence (not necessarily wilful and wanton conduct), and Cochran’s complaint stated a viable claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether a claim for interference with the right to possess a corpse requires allegations of wilful and wanton misconduct (vs. ordinary negligence) | Cochran: ordinary negligence is sufficient; emotional distress is an element of damages for the tort | Securitas: plaintiff must plead wilful and wanton misconduct (not mere negligence) to recover emotional-distress damages | Court: Ordinary negligence suffices; emotional distress is recoverable as an element of damages for the independent tort of interference with corpse possession |
Key Cases Cited
- Leno v. St. Joseph Hospital, 55 Ill. 2d 114 (Ill. 1973) (recognizing next of kin’s right to possess decedent’s remains and recovery for mental suffering caused by interference)
- Mensinger v. O’Hara, 189 Ill. App. 48 (Ill. App. 1914) (early recognition of the right to possession; did not definitively adopt a wilful-and-wanton requirement)
- Rickey v. Chicago Transit Authority, 98 Ill. 2d 546 (Ill. 1983) (abandoned impact rule for bystanders; articulated zone-of-danger rule for NIED)
- Siemieniec v. Lutheran General Hospital, 117 Ill. 2d 230 (Ill. 1987) (applied zone-of-danger to bar emotional-distress recovery in wrongful-birth context; later clarified)
- Clark v. Children’s Memorial Hospital, 2011 IL 108656 (Ill. 2011) (overruled Siemieniec’s application of zone-of-danger to claims where emotional distress is an element of damages for an underlying tort; clarified that such claims can proceed on ordinary negligence)