## Facts

- Kiro Arthur Jaynes died in February 1994.
- Kiro’s brother, William Jaynes, and Kiro’s son, Arthur Jaynes, made burial arrangements with Strong‑Thorne Mortuary, Inc., doing business as Fairview Memorial Park.
- The Jaynes family owned a family plot at Fairview Memorial Gardens, where Kiro was to be buried near other relatives, including William’s mother, Vondaine Jaynes.
- William was concerned the new grave could be dug without disturbing nearby family graves; the site was examined in advance to check spacing.
- During discussions at the funeral home about the cemetery contract for Kiro’s burial, William asked David C. Merrill, a managerial employee, whether digging Kiro’s grave would disturb any other graves.
- Merrill told William no other graves would be disturbed and that a nearby headstone could be temporarily removed to allow clearance.
- Strong‑Thorne dug Kiro’s grave using a backhoe. Although a spotter was typically used, none was used here.
- The digging broke into the adjacent, roughly thirty‑year‑old grave of Vondaine Jaynes, damaging the grave liner and casket and exposing her remains.
- Strong‑Thorne did not follow its policy of covering newly dug graves. Both Kiro’s open grave and the exposed portion of Vondaine’s grave were left uncovered.
- The disturbance was discovered before the funeral, and the matter was reported; Strong‑Thorne then repaired the damage and the burial proceeded.
- Vondaine’s surviving children—William Jaynes, Robert Jaynes, Linda Gray, and Carolyn Salter—sued Strong‑Thorne for breach of contract, intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED), negligent infliction of emotional distress (NIED), and prima facie tort.
- Strong‑Thorne moved for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted the motion, later refused to vacate the judgment, and plaintiffs appealed.
- On appeal, the parties clarified that the summary‑judgment motion was not based on disputing whether plaintiffs suffered severe emotional distress; the dispute was whether the law permitted recovery on these theories.

## Issues

1. Whether William Jaynes could establish an enforceable contract based on the mortuary’s assurances about not disturbing adjacent graves, or whether the alleged agreement failed for lack of consideration.
2. Whether plaintiffs could recover for NIED based on disturbance and exposure of their mother’s remains, given New Mexico’s limits on negligent emotional-distress recovery.
3. Whether the mortuary’s conduct could, as a matter of law, satisfy New Mexico’s requirements for IIED (extreme and outrageous conduct with the required mental state causing severe emotional distress).
4. Whether the evidence supported prima facie tort, including an intent to injure and lack of sufficient justification, rather than mere negligence.
5. Whether summary judgment for Strong‑Thorne was proper on all claims.

## Decision

- The New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for Strong‑Thorne on all claims.
- The breach-of-contract claim failed because the alleged promise to avoid disturbing other graves was not supported by consideration sufficient to create a separate enforceable agreement.
- The NIED claim failed because plaintiffs’ emotional-harm theory did not fit within the recognized, limited categories for negligent emotional-distress recovery under New Mexico law, and the court declined to expand those categories on these facts.
- The IIED claim failed because the conduct, even viewed in plaintiffs’ favor, did not meet the legal threshold for “extreme and outrageous” conduct with the required intent or recklessness for IIED liability.
- The prima facie tort claim failed because the record did not support a finding that Strong‑Thorne acted with a primary intent to injure plaintiffs; the allegations described negligent or careless conduct, not intentional injury.

## Legal Principles

- A contract requires consideration; an alleged promise is not enforceable absent a bargained-for exchange.
- Negligent infliction of emotional distress in New Mexico is confined to limited, recognized settings; courts are reluctant to allow recovery for purely emotional harm outside those settings.
- IIED requires conduct that is extreme and outrageous and a mental state of intent or recklessness regarding the likelihood of causing severe emotional distress.
- Prima facie tort requires an intentional act committed with intent to injure (and without sufficient justification) and cannot be used to convert negligent conduct into an intentional tort without proof of intent to harm.
- Summary judgment is appropriate when, even crediting the nonmovant’s evidence, the claim fails as a matter of law because required elements are missing.

## Conclusion

In *Jaynes v. Strong‑Thorne Mortuary, Inc.*, the New Mexico Supreme Court affirmed summary judgment for the mortuary after it accidentally broke into and exposed the plaintiffs’ mother’s grave while digging another grave, holding that the plaintiffs could not show an enforceable contract based on the mortuary’s assurances (due to lack of consideration) and that the emotional-distress and prima facie tort claims failed because New Mexico law did not permit recovery on these pleaded theories and the record did not establish the elements of IIED or intentional injury required for prima facie tort.


Jaynes v. Strong-Thorne Mortuary, Inc., 954 P.2d 45 (1997)