Coon v. the Medical Center, Inc.
335 Ga. App. 278
Ga. Ct. App.2015Background
- Amanda Coon (Alabama resident) delivered a stillborn baby at a Columbus, Georgia hospital; hospital employees misidentified remains and released the wrong baby to the Opelika (AL) funeral home.
- Coon attended a funeral and burial in Opelika for the misidentified remains; hospital later discovered the error, exhumed the remains, and reburied the correct baby; hospital paid exhumation/reburial costs.
- Coon sued the hospital in Georgia for emotional distress from the mishandling of her child’s remains.
- Trial court initially applied Alabama law (lex loci delicti) and denied summary judgment; after reconsideration it invoked Georgia’s public-policy exception, applied Georgia law, and granted summary judgment for the hospital.
- Georgia Court of Appeals affirmed: it held Georgia law applied under the public-policy exception and that Coon’s negligent and intentional emotional distress claims (and derivative punitive damages) failed as a matter of law under Georgia standards.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Choice-of-law: whether Alabama or Georgia law governs | Lex loci delicti points to Alabama because Coon suffered injury in Opelika when notified and the funeral/exhumation occurred there | Georgia’s public-policy exception bars applying Alabama law because Alabama lacks Georgia’s impact rule for emotional-distress claims | Georgia law applies under the public-policy exception (majority); concurrence would apply Georgia common law on other grounds; dissent would apply Alabama law |
| Negligent infliction of emotional distress: impact rule and pecuniary-loss exception | Alabama permits recovery without physical impact; Coon claims pecuniary losses and emotional injury | Under Georgia’s impact rule, no recovery absent physical impact; funeral costs are not compensable as pecuniary losses tied to emotional injury; disinterment/reburial costs did not result from plaintiff’s mental injury | Summary judgment for hospital: no physical impact and alleged pecuniary losses do not trigger Georgia’s exception |
| Intentional infliction of emotional distress: outrageousness and causation | Hospital’s conduct was extreme and caused severe distress (burying wrong baby, exhumation, second burial) | The conduct, while tragic, was negligent/mistaken and not sufficiently extreme/outrageous or intentional/reckless to meet Georgia standard | Summary judgment for hospital: conduct did not satisfy Georgia’s extreme/outrageous threshold |
| Punitive damages | Seek punitive damages for emotional-distress claims | Punitive damages derivative of failing claims | Summary judgment: punitive damages dismissed as derivative of unsuccessful claims |
Key Cases Cited
- Lee v. State Farm Mut. Ins. Co., 272 Ga. 583 (2000) (explains Georgia’s impact rule and policy rationales)
- Alexander v. Gen. Motors Corp., 267 Ga. 339 (1996) (public-policy exception to lex loci delicti when foreign law radically differs)
- Intl. Business Machines Corp. v. Kemp, 244 Ga. App. 638 (2000) (lex loci delicti governs tort choice-of-law)
- Risdon Enterprises v. Colemill Enterprises, 172 Ga. App. 902 (1984) (place of injury test for locus delicti)
- Ob-Gyn Assoc. of Albany v. Littleton, 259 Ga. 663 (1989) (discusses requirements for emotional-distress recovery)
- Candler Hosp. v. Dent, 228 Ga. App. 421 (1997) (Georgia collateral-source rule principles)
- Canziani v. Visiting Nurse Health Systems, 271 Ga. App. 677 (2005) (standard for intentional infliction of emotional distress)
- Veatch v. Aurora Loan Svcs., 331 Ga. App. 597 (2015) (procedural/summary judgment principles under Georgia law)
- Slaton v. Hall, 168 Ga. 710 (1929) (choice-of-law discussion on applying sister-state statutory constructions)