Conroy v. Regents of the University of California

Summary

The California Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the Regents of the University of California on claims arising from the handling of a decedent's donated body in the UCI Willed Body Program. The court held that the record did not establish that the decedent's body was mishandled, that the Regents had a duty to return the remains, or that plaintiff identified false representations on which she relied. The court also concluded that evidence of generalized misconduct involving other donated bodies was insufficient to establish causation or liability.

Holdings

1. A plaintiff cannot establish negligence based solely on evidence of a general pattern of misconduct involving other donated bodies; the plaintiff must provide evidence connecting the alleged misconduct to the particular decedent's remains. Because Conroy presented no such evidence, summary judgment for the Regents was proper.
2. The donation agreement and applicable law did not impose on the Regents a duty to return James Conroy's remains to plaintiff, a continuing duty to maintain records for that purpose, or a duty to conduct teaching and research in a manner designed to safeguard surviving family members' sensibilities. Evidence of a purported duty to notify plaintiff of an ash-scattering ceremony could not defeat summary judgment because that theory was not pleaded.
3. Summary judgment was proper on the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims because Conroy identified no evidence that the alleged representations about the use and handling of James Conroy's body were false.
4. Conroy could not establish actual reliance for fraud or negligent misrepresentation because she did not execute the donation agreement, did not possess the legal right to control disposition of her husband's body, and did not alter her legal relations with UCI based on the alleged representations.

Questions Presented

1. Whether summary judgment was proper on the negligence claim when the record showed general misconduct in the Willed Body Program but no evidence that James Conroy's body was mishandled.
2. Whether the Regents owed duties to return the remains, maintain records concerning the body, notify Conroy of the scattering of ashes, or handle the body in a manner protecting surviving family members' sensibilities.
3. Whether summary judgment was proper on the fraud and negligent misrepresentation claims because the record did not establish a false representation or actual reliance by Conroy.
4. Whether evidence raised for the first time in opposition to summary judgment could create a new theory of liability not alleged in the complaint.

Disposition

affirmed