Maida v. Velella, 68 N.Y.2d 1026 (1986)

A funeral home director leading a procession owes a duty of care to participants to refrain from creating an unreasonably hazardous situation.

Summary

This case concerns a car accident within a funeral procession. The plaintiffs, participating in a funeral procession led by Daniel George and Son Funeral Home, were injured when their car was struck by another vehicle. The accident occurred when the plaintiffs, following the procession, entered an intersection and were unable to clear it due to the procession stopping. The court held that while the cemetery owed no duty to the plaintiffs, the funeral home, by leading the procession, owed a duty of care to avoid creating an unreasonably hazardous situation. The Court of Appeals reversed the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to the funeral home, finding that triable issues of fact existed regarding breach of duty and proximate cause.

Facts

Anthony and Anne Maida were part of a funeral procession originating from Daniel George and Son Funeral Home and headed to Pine Lawn Memorial Park and Cemetery. The Maidas were driving the third car behind the hearse and a limousine, both arranged by the funeral home. Upon entering the cemetery, the procession proceeded on Pinelawn Memorial Road. At the intersection of Pinelawn Memorial Road and Wellwood Avenue, the Maidas stopped at a stop sign, observed a vehicle driven by Michael Velella traveling southbound on Wellwood Avenue, but proceeded into the intersection, believing they had sufficient time to cross. Velella’s vehicle struck the Maidas’ car in the intersection, causing serious injuries. The plaintiffs asserted that they could not clear the intersection because the vehicles ahead of them in the procession had stopped.

Procedural History

The Maidas sued Daniel George and Son Funeral Home, Inc. and Pine Lawn Memorial Park and Cemetery. Both defendants moved for dismissal or summary judgment. The lower court granted summary judgment to both defendants. The Appellate Division affirmed the grant of summary judgment to Pine Lawn but reversed the grant of summary judgment to Daniel George. Daniel George appealed to the New York Court of Appeals.

Issue(s)

1. Whether Pine Lawn Memorial Park and Cemetery owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs to protect them from the conduct of those leading the funeral procession or other drivers on public roadways?

2. Whether Daniel George and Son Funeral Home, Inc., by undertaking to lead the funeral procession, owed a duty of care to the plaintiffs?

3. Whether Daniel George and Son Funeral Home, Inc. breached their duty of care to the plaintiffs by stopping the procession before all cars had crossed Wellwood Avenue, and whether such breach was the proximate cause of the accident?

Holding

1. No, because Pine Lawn had not undertaken to lead the procession and had no other relationship with plaintiffs requiring it to protect them.

2. Yes, because by undertaking to lead the funeral procession, Daniel George owed a duty to refrain from creating an unreasonably hazardous situation for those participating.

3. The court did not make a holding on this issue, because whether a breach occurred and whether that breach was a proximate cause of the accident are questions of fact for the jury.

Court’s Reasoning

The court reasoned that Pine Lawn’s motion for summary judgment was properly granted because Pine Lawn had no control over the procession and no relationship with the plaintiffs that would create a duty to protect them from the actions of those leading the procession or other drivers. Citing Pulka v. Edelman, 40 N.Y.2d 781, 783.

However, the court found that Daniel George, by leading the procession, assumed a duty of care to the participants. The court stated that Daniel George “clearly owed a duty to refrain from creating an unreasonably hazardous situation for those participating in the procession.” The court reasoned that the questions of whether Daniel George breached that duty by stopping the procession prematurely and whether such a breach was a proximate cause of the accident were questions of fact that should be determined at trial, not on summary judgment. The court also noted it could not be determined from the papers submitted if the defendant could reasonably foresee the consequences of its actions. Citing Ugarriza v Schmieder, 46 N.Y.2d 471, 474. Therefore, summary judgment was inappropriate. In practical terms, this means funeral homes that lead processions have a legal responsibility to ensure the safety of the participants and cannot create dangerous situations.