Coon v. Medical Center, Inc.
300 Ga. 722
Ga.2017Background
- Amanda Coon, an Alabama resident, delivered a stillborn baby at a Georgia hospital; the hospital misidentified and released the wrong remains to a funeral home, later exhuming and recovering Coon’s child.
- Coon sued the hospital in Georgia asserting negligent infliction of emotional distress (and related claims); she sought damages for emotional distress from the mishandling of remains.
- Trial court initially found Alabama law applied; on reconsideration the court applied Georgia law under the public-policy exception and granted summary judgment to the hospital.
- The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed in a fractured 7-judge decision: plurality relied on the public-policy exception; a special concurrence applied Georgia common-law rules to interpret the common law of Alabama; a dissent would have applied Alabama law.
- The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the choice-of-law question and whether an exception to Georgia’s physical-impact rule should be recognized for mishandled human remains.
- The Court concluded Georgia’s traditional choice-of-law rule for common-law claims controls (Georgia courts determine the common law), applied Georgia’s physical-impact rule, and declined to create a new exception; judgment affirmed.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Which state law governs a common-law tort claim filed in Georgia when the injury occurred in another common-law state (Alabama)? | Lex loci delicti points to Alabama where the emotional injury occurred; Alabama law allows recovery for mishandling remains without physical impact. | Georgia should apply its own common-law rules; alternatively, Georgia public-policy exception bars applying Alabama law. | Georgia follows its longstanding rule: where common law governs, Georgia courts decide what that common law is; Georgia law controls. |
| Whether Georgia may refuse to apply Alabama law under the public-policy exception to lex loci delicti | Coon argued lex loci should control (Alabama). | Hospital argued Georgia’s public-policy exception permits application of Georgia law to avoid conflict with Georgia’s physical-impact rule. | Court affirmed result reached by Court of Appeals; special-concurrence rule controlling made the public-policy analysis unnecessary here. |
| Whether Georgia should recognize an exception to the physical-impact rule for negligent mishandling of human remains | Coon urged a new exception permitting recovery without physical impact. | Hospital argued Georgia’s physical-impact rule precludes recovery absent physical injury; creating an exception would flood courts and lack limiting principle. | Court declined to create a new exception; Georgia’s physical-impact rule governs negligent infliction claims absent physical impact or pecuniary loss. |
| Whether precedent requiring Georgia courts to apply Georgia’s articulation of common law (even for torts occurring in other common-law states) remains valid | Coon argued the rule is outdated and displaced by procedural amendments allowing judicial notice of foreign law. | State defended traditional rule and cited long line of Georgia precedent and reliance interests. | Court reaffirmed traditional approach: Georgia courts may and will determine common law, and precedent remains binding. |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000) (reaffirming Georgia's physical-impact rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress and narrowly defining the parent/child exception)
- Coon v. The Medical Center, Inc., 335 Ga. App. 278 (2015) (Court of Appeals decision below; fractured panel addressing choice-of-law and emotional-distress claims)
- Slaton v. Hall, 168 Ga. 710 (1929) (Georgia precedent explaining that, where common law governs, Georgia courts decide the content of the common law)
- Krogg v. Atlanta & W. Point R., 77 Ga. 202 (1886) (early Georgia decision endorsing the rule that Georgia courts determine common-law principles even for torts occurring in other states)
- Chapman v. Western Union Tel. Co., 88 Ga. 763 (1892) (early adoption of Georgia's physical-impact rule in negligent emotional-distress jurisprudence)