Coon v. the Medical Center, Inc, 300 Ga. 722

Background

Amanda Coon (Alabama resident) delivered a stillborn infant at a Georgia hospital; hospital staff mis-tagged remains and released the wrong baby to the funeral home, which was buried and later exhumed. The hospital eventually recovered and reburied Coon’s baby.
Coon sued the hospital in Georgia seeking damages for negligent infliction of emotional distress (and related claims) based on the mishandling of her child’s remains.
The trial court initially applied Alabama law (lex loci delicti) and denied summary judgment; later it applied Georgia law under the public-policy exception and granted summary judgment for the hospital.
The Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed; opinions diverged on choice-of-law: a plurality relied on the public-policy exception, a special concurrence applied Georgia’s long-standing rule that Georgia courts decide common-law questions, and a dissent would have applied Alabama law.
The Georgia Supreme Court granted certiorari to resolve the choice-of-law approach and whether an exception to Georgia’s physical-impact rule should be recognized for negligent mishandling of human remains.
The Supreme Court held that Georgia’s traditional choice-of-law rule for common-law questions controls and, applying Georgia common law, refused to create a new exception to the physical-impact rule; judgment affirmed.

Issues

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Which state’s law governs Coon’s emotional-distress claim?	Lex loci delicti (Alabama): injury occurred in Opelika where distress and funeral events happened; Alabama permits recovery for mishandling remains without physical impact.	Georgia law should apply (via public-policy exception or Georgia common-law rule): Georgia’s rules limit negligent emotional-distress recovery.	Georgia Supreme Court: follow Georgia’s traditional rule that when common law governs, Georgia courts determine the common law; Georgia law applies.
Whether Georgia’s public-policy exception to lex loci delicti bars applying Alabama law	N/A (primary plaintiff position favored Alabama law)	Hospital: applying Alabama law would conflict with Georgia public policy embodied in the physical-impact rule.	Court did not rely on the public-policy exception as necessary; instead applied Georgia common-law choice-of-law approach and reached same result.
Whether Georgia should recognize an exception to the physical-impact rule for negligent mishandling of human remains	Coon: seek a new exception allowing recovery without physical impact or pecuniary loss.	Hospital: oppose new exception; argue Lee’s physical-impact rule prevents recovery absent physical injury or pecuniary loss; creating an exception would be unworkable.	Court: refused to create a new exception; upheld the physical-impact rule and declined expansion.
Whether Georgia courts may adopt another state’s common-law rule absent a controlling statute	Coon: modern procedure (judicial notice of foreign law) and realism support applying Alabama common-law rules.	Hospital: Georgia precedent requires Georgia courts to determine common-law rule; may adopt foreign view only if persuaded it is correct.	Court: reaffirmed longstanding rule that Georgia courts apply their own determination of common law when other common-law states are involved.

Key Cases Cited

Lee v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Ga. 583 (reaffirming Georgia’s physical-impact rule for negligent infliction of emotional distress)
Slaton v. Hall, 168 Ga. 710 (prescribing Georgia’s rule that courts decide common-law questions even when tort occurred elsewhere)
Krogg v. Atlanta & West Point R., 77 Ga. 202 (early statement that Georgia courts are duty-bound to decide common-law rules)
Coon v. The Medical Center, Inc., 335 Ga. App. 278 (Ga. Ct. App.) (Court of Appeals decision below showing split reasoning on choice of law)
Hang v. Wages & Sons Funeral Home, Inc., 262 Ga. App. 177 (Court of Appeals rejection of a new exception for mishandling remains)
Hall v. Carney, 236 Ga. App. 172 (Court of Appeals rejecting exception to physical-impact rule for disinterment of stillborn remains)