Fifer v. Salas Bros. Funeral Chapel
Published: Aug. 23, 2001 | Result Date: Jun. 20, 2001 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |Case number: 249056 Verdict – $0
Judge
Court
Stanislaus Superior
Attorneys
Plaintiff
Defendant
Facts
The plaintiffs contended that the embalming, presentation and overall funeral services provided by defendant
Sales Brothers Funeral Chapel fell below the standard of care. Specifically, the plaintiffs claimed that the
decedent was discolored in the hands and face as a result of negligent embalming. Additionally, the other
funeral services amenities provided allegedly fell below the standard of care.
The defendant denied that the standard of care was breached in any of the funeral service provisions made. The
plaintiffs liability expert on the science of embalming, Richard T. Callahan, testified that the embalming and
funeral service measures provided by the defendant fell below the standard of care.
PlaintiffÆs psychologist expert Dr. Lee J. Erwin testified that each of the plaintiffs were psychologically
damages as a result of the funeral services by the appearance of the decedent, Clifford Fifer, at the time of the
viewing and the funeral. The decedent was the husband of plaintiff Joanne Fifer and the father of plaintiffs
Shaney, Keisha and Chauncy Fifer.
PlaintiffÆs expert oncologist, Dr. Abdol A. Mojab, testified that the discolorations that he
observed in the photographs of the decedent were not caused by chemotherapy.
Settlement Discussions
The plaintiffs demanded a total $1 million at the settlement conference. The defendant made C.C.P. Section 998 offers to plaintiffs Chauncy Fifer, Keisha Fifer and Shaney Fifer for $2,500 each and to plaintiff Joanne Fifer for $7,500. The plaintiffs rejected these offers. A mediation was held by Daniel Quinn on Aug. 8, 2000. No specific numbers were exchanges except for the previously made C.C.P. Section 998 offer to compromise made by the defendant to the individual plaintiffs.
Damages
The plaintiffs claimed that they sustained psychological injuries. The plaintiffs asked the jury to return a verdict in the amount of $200,000 for each of the four plaintiffs.
Other Information
The jury returned a defense verdict as to all of the plaintiffs.<P>The plaintiffsÆ motion for new trial and judgment notwithstanding the verdict were denied on Aug. 7, 2001.</P>
Deliberation
two hours
Poll
10-2
Length
six days
For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:
Email
jeremy@reprintpros.com
for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390