DONALD PAUL CHRISTENSEN et al., Petitioners, v. THE SUPERIOR COURT OF LOS ANGELES COUNTY, Respondent; PASADENA CREMATORIUM OF ALTADENA et al., Real Parties in Interest, 54 Cal. 3d 868

Opinion BAXTER, J. We are asked to decide whether persons other than those who contract for the services of mortuaries and crematoria or have the statutory right to direct the disposition of the body of a decedent may recover damages for emotional distress engendered by knowledge of the negligent or intentional mishandling of the decedent’s remains when they did not observe the misconduct or its consequences.

The Court of Appeal held that those family members may recover damages for the emotional distress they suffer if remains are negligently or intentionally mishandled, and that if the mishandling is intentional all family members and close friends of the deceased may do so. We agree that the class of persons who may recover for emotional distress negligently caused by the defendants is not limited to those who have the statutory right to control disposition of the remains and those who contract for disposition. The class is not, however, as expansive as that identified by the Court of Appeal.

As in all recovery for negligence, the potential plaintiff must be a person to whom the defendant owes a duty recognized by the law. In this context, the duty is owed only to those close family members who were aware that funeral and/or crematory services were being performed, and on whose behalf or for whose benefit the services were rendered. Therefore, and because we also conclude that the individual plaintiffs and the class they seek to represent lack standing to recover on an intentional infliction of emotional distress theory, the judgment of the Court of Appeal must be modified.

I This matter arises on review of a ruling on standing to sue made by the trial court in a coordination proceeding. At the trial court’s request the parties briefed the question of standing based on the allegations of a designated “model” complaint, selected for the purpose of preliminary rulings from those filed in the coordinated actions.

The Court of Appeal treated the ruling as one in the nature of a ruling on a demurrer, accepting the allegations of the model complaint as true for purposes of this proceeding, and considering whether those allegations stated a cause of action on behalf of all of the individual plaintiffs, and the class the individual plaintiffs sought to represent. In response to plaintiffs’ petition for writ of mandate, after issuance of an alternative writ the Court of Appeal directed that a peremptory writ issue to compel the trial court to modify its order to recognize the standing of additional plaintiffs.

We agree with the Court of Appeal that the ruling, although described as one on standing, was in the nature of a ruling on a demurrer inasmuch as the effect was to determine whether all of the plaintiffs and the plaintiff class had stated a cause or causes of action for which each could recover emotional distress damages. We address the issues as having been raised in that context. The model complaint defined the plaintiff class as one consisting of surviving spouses, relatives, and designated representatives of decedents whose remains had been mishandled by defendants.

The individual plaintiffs who seek to represent the class are persons within the class who have the right and responsibility for handling, and the right to custody and possession of their decedents’ remains, and possess or may acquire the right under

section 7100 of the Health and Safety Code to control disposition of the remains, and/or contracted for defendants’ services, paid for the services, or represent the estates of persons who did so. All of the individual plaintiffs and members of the plaintiff class as described in the model complaint are, therefore, contracting parties and/or relatives of decedents whose remains were allegedly mishandled. The defendants fall into two principal classes designated by plaintiffs as the “mortuary” defendants and the “crematory” defendants.

The mortuary defendants allegedly undertook to, contracted to, and agreed to provide funeral-related services for the benefit of plaintiffs, and to accomplish the cremation of the remains of plaintiffs’ decedents “with the dignity and respect due them in accordance with Plaintiffs’ and decedents’ wishes, in keeping with public sensibilities, and in accordance with the law.” The mortuary defendants contracted with the crematory defendants for cremation of the remains.

The crematory defendants, which represented that they would perform cremations in a dignified and respectful manner, provided forms authorizing cremation to the mortuary defendants to enable the latter to obtain consent from the next of kin whose business the mortuary defendants solicited on behalf of both themselves and the crematory defendants. The mortuary defendants knew, or should have known, of the illegal and improper practices of the crematory defendants. The remaining defendants, Carolina Biological Supply Company and its agent William G.

Gabriel, residents of North Carolina (collectively, the Carolina defendants), allegedly requested and purchased human organs and body parts from the crematory defendants. The Carolina defendants failed to seek review of an earlier order of the trial court overruling their demurrer, and did not seek review of the Court of Appeal ruling on the standing of a subclass of plaintiffs who seek recovery from the Carolina defendants.

In that ruling, the Court of Appeal held that only the statutory right holders may recover from the Carolina defendants that, allegedly, purchased bodily organs and parts taken from plaintiffs’ decedents by the crematory defendants, and did so under circumstances in which the Carolina defendants knew or should have known that desecration of human remains would necessarily occur. The PFAC seeks relief against members of each class directly and for the acts of others on theories of agency and conspiracy.

The events about which plaintiffs complain occurred in the period 1980-1987, but were not discovered by plaintiffs until February 1987, when plaintiffs first learned “from public media reports” that their decedents’ remains had been mishandled in the manner alleged in the complaint. The model complaint alleged that the crematory defendants mishandled and mutilated remains, commingled human remains, and violated sections 7051, 7052, 7054.7, and 7055, as well as Business and Professions Code

section 7735, and Penal Code

section 487.1.

More specifically, in support of this allegation and one charging that those defendants had “removed and ‘harvested,’ without authorization or permission, numerous human organs and body parts from plaintiffs’ decedents’ remains,” the complaint alleged that defendants cremated remains in the pottery kiln of defendant Oscar Ceramics; cremated remains in a disrespectful manner; cremated as many as 10 to 15 bodies together at the pottery kiln and multiple bodies at other locations; took and sold gold and other metals from the remains; placed cremated remains in urns or other containers without preserving their integrity or identity; and mutilated decedents’ remains “including, but not limited to the unauthorized taking of Plaintiffs’ decedents’ corneas, eyes, hearts, lungs and other organs, and bones and body parts, which were sold for Defendants’ profit. . . .” The mortuary defendants, who had agreed to provide funeral-related services and accomplish cremation of the remains for the benefit of plaintiffs, had contracted with the crematory defendants for services in circumstances in which they knew or should have known that this conduct was occurring or would occur.

On discovering defendants’ misconduct plaintiffs suffered and will continue to suffer “physical injury, shock, outrage, extreme anxiety, worry, mortification, embarrassment, humiliation, distress, grief, and sorrow.” The ninth cause of action, identified as one for “Intentional Interference with Remains and Infliction of Emotional Distress,” alleged that the crematory and mortuary defendants had wilfully and deliberately interfered with the rights and duties of the plaintiffs to effect the proper cremation of the remains “by mutilating the remains by ‘harvesting’ of organs and body parts, by performing multiple cremations, by commingling decedents’ cremated remains with other cremated remains, and with nonhuman residue, and by unceremoniously and disrespectfully handling Plaintiff’s decedents’ remains, rather than by separately, respectfully, and with dignity, mishandling the cremated remains . . . .” As a result plaintiffs allegedly suffered injury like that described above.

The 10th cause of action, identified as one for “Negligent Interference with Remains and Infliction of Emotional Distress,” alleged the same improper conduct and injury caused by defendants’ negligent, reckless and careless interference with the plaintiffs’ statutory rights and responsibilities to dispose of the remains of their decedents. This count also alleged that defendants had cremated, handled, and treated their decedents’ remains in ways unauthorized by plaintiffs and their decedents, which were contrary to their wishes, requests, and beliefs.

Such negligent interference was accomplished through the common course and practice of unauthorized mutilation, improper cremation and commingling of remains. Negligent entrustment of the remains to persons unqualified to handle them was also alleged. Citing Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc. (1964) 231 Cal.App.2d 1 [41 Cal.Rptr. 481], and Sinai Temple v. Kaplan (1976) 54 Cal.App.3d 1103 [127 Cal.Rptr. 80], as controlling, the trial court ruled that only those plaintiffs who were entitled by

section 7100 to control the disposition of their decedents’ remains as of the date of the decedents’ death, or who actually contracted for disposition, had standing to assert the claims set forth in the model complaint. II

Section 7100 establishes rights and duties in the disposition of human remains, providing: “The right to control the disposition of the remains of a deceased person, unless other directions have been given by the decedent, vests in, and the duty of interment and the liability for the reasonable cost of interment of such remains devolves upon the following in the order named: “(

a) The surviving spouse. “(

b) The surviving child or children of the decedent. “(

c) The surviving parent or parents of the decedent. “(

d) The person or persons respectively in the next degrees of kindred in the order named by the laws of California as entitled to succeed to the estate of the decedent. “(

e) The public administrator when the deceased has sufficient assets. <6 » Other statutory provisions relied on by plaintiffs and/or relevant to the claims made by plaintiffs include the following: The person who has the

section 7100 duty of interment is entitled to custody of the remains for that purpose, or if the remains are cremated for burial at sea. (§ 7102.) Pursuant to the version of the Uniform Anatomical Gift Act (§ 7150 et seq.) in effect when this case arose, an individual had the primary right to make, permit, or refuse to permit the making of an anatomical gift. (Former § 7151. See now § 7150.5.) It was and is a felony to remove any part of any human remains from the place deposited while awaiting interment with the intent to sell it, unless written permission is given by the person who holds the

section 7100 right. (§ 7051. See also Pen. Code, § 367f.)

Section 7054.7 prohibits multiple cremation of remains and commingling of remains without the written permission of the

section 7100 right holder, making violation of its provisions a misdemeanor.

Section 7055 makes it a misdemeanor to remove remains from one primary registration district to another, except in a funeral director’s conveyance, without a permit by the local registrar. Ill Before considering the causes of action for negligent and intentional interference with remains, the Court of Appeal addressed the plaintiffs’ standing to seek recovery on a theory that plaintiffs, or some of them, were third party beneficiaries of a contract for mortuary services. It concluded that a

section 7100 right holder is the only express beneficiary of a contract for mortuary services, and that if the contracting party was not the

section 7100 right holder, only the holder of that right may be seen as an intended beneficiary of the contract. The

section 7100 right did devolve according to the statutory scheme, however, if the holder at the date of the death of the decedent himself or herself died. After considering this court’s recent decisions in Thing v. La Chusa (1989) 48 Cal.3d 644 [257 Cal.Rptr. 865, 771 P.2d 814], and Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc. (1989) 48 Cal.3d 583 [257 Cal.Rptr. 98, 770 P.2d 278], the Court of Appeal held that none of the plaintiffs could recover on either a negligent infliction of emotional distress or an intentional infliction of emotional distress theory.

The court also held, however, that the allegations of the complaint stated a cause of action for negligent mishandling of a corpse, as recognized in Quesada v. Oak Hill Improvement Co. (1989) 213 Cal.App.3d 596 [261 Cal.Rptr. 769], for which the close family members described in Thing and grandchildren may recover damages for emotional distress. A broader class, all family members and close friends, could recover for emotional distress suffered as a result of the intentional mishandling of remains. In reaching these conclusions, the Court of Appeal applied well-settled principles governing the tort of negligence.

The court recognized, as had this court in Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.3d 583, 588, that when damages are sought for negligently inflicted emotional distress, the tort is negligence regardless of the specific name that may be used to describe the tort, and that the elements of duty, breach of duty, causation and damages must be pleaded and proven.

The court reasoned that when a mortuary agrees to care for the remains of a decedent, a special relationship is created between the mortuary and the close family members of the decedent by virtue of the nature of the services the mortuary undertakes to perform. The mortuary’s duty to properly discharge its responsibility of caring for the decedent runs to all persons with whom it has that special relationship, not just to the person who actually contracts for the services. It is foreseeable that a breach of that duty may cause severe emotional distress to members of the bereaved family.

In recognizing a broader class of persons entitled to recover for intentional mishandling of a corpse, the Court of Appeal relied on language in Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co. (1963) 59 Cal.2d 295, 315 [29 Cal.Rptr. 33, 379 P.2d 513], quoted with approval in Thing v.

La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, 652-653, which distinguished the culpability and liability of intentional tortfeasors from that of those who are merely negligent: “[T]he increased liability imposed on an intentional wrongdoer appears to reflect the psychological fact that solicitude for the interests of the actor weighs less in the balance as his [or her] moral guilt increases and the social utility of his [or her] conduct diminishes.” The Court of Appeal also reasoned, based on statements in Thing v.

La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, that when an intentional tort is alleged, and society seeks to both punish the wrongdoer and deter such conduct by others, the imposition of liability out of all proportion to a defendant’s negligence is not a concern. Therefore it is not necessary to limit liability to as narrow a class as is the case when negligence is the cause of the injury. For that reason, no arbitrary limitation of recovery to persons in a close family relationship with the decedent was required when the defendant had intentionally mishandled a corpse.

Close friends of the decedent need not be denied the right to recover. IV Negligence A. Standing. Defendants contend that the right to recover for emotional distress caused by the mishandling of human remains should be limited to those members of the decedent’s family who actually witness the negligent conduct. In order to avoid the creation of limitless liability out of proportion to a defendant’s fault the line should be drawn, as it was in Thing v.

La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, so as to restrict recovery to those persons who are able to establish a direct causal link between perception of the misconduct and the emotional distress they suffer. The Court of Appeal, they argue, has erroneously recognized a new tort—mishandling human remains—which is not so limited. It is true, as defendants observe, that the tort with which we are concerned is negligence. Negligent infliction of emotional distress is not an independent tort (Marlene F. v. Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.3d 583, 588), nor is negligent mishandling of human remains.

Those names are, however, convenient terminology descriptive of the context in which the negligent conduct occurred. Nonetheless, recognition that the theory on which recovery is sought is negligence does not mean that the principles which governed our decision in Thing v. La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, compel a similar result here. Thing and Dillon v.

Legg (1968) 68 Cal.2d 728 [69 Cal.Rptr. 72, 441 P.2d 912, 29 A.L.R.3d 1316], addressed the question of duty in circumstances in which a plaintiff seeks to recover damages as a percipient witness to the injury of another. “[T]he Dillon principles represent but the means for resolving the duty question in the specific factual context of the ‘bystander witness’ scenario . . . .” (Marlene F. v.

Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.3d 583, 589, fn. 4.) Moreover, the line of negligence decisions commencing with Dillon and culminating in Thing all arise in the context of physical injury or emotional distress caused by the negligent conduct of a defendant with whom the plaintiff had no preexisting relationship, and to whom the defendant had not previously assumed a duty of care beyond that owed to the public in general. The plaintiffs had not themselves been threatened with physical injury and their emotional distress did not arise out of fear for their own safety.

They sought to recover for emotional distress suffered as a result of observing the negligently caused injury of another. It was foreseeable that such persons would suffer emotional distress, but because it was foreseeable that any person who observed the injury-producing event would suffer some emotional distress and the class of potential plaintiffs was limitless, the court undertook to define and circumscribe the class to whom the defendant owed a duty. (Thing v. La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, 652; Dillon v.

Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d 728, 733-735.) In determining liability for negligence, we begin always with the command of Civil Code

section 1714, subdivision (a): “Everyone is responsible, not only for the result of his willful acts, but also for an injury occasioned to another by his want of ordinary care or skill in the management of his property or person, except so far as the latter has, willfully or by want of ordinary care, brought the injury upon himself.” In the absence of a statutory provision limiting this rule, exceptions to the general principle imposing liability for negligence are recognized only when clearly supported by public policy. (Rowland v.

Christian (1968) 69 Cal.2d 108, 112 [70 Cal.Rptr. 97, 443 P.2d 561, 32 A.L.R.3d 496.) Amaya, Dillon, and Thing reflect a public policy exception which limits the right of a bystander who did not suffer physical injury and was not threatened with such injury to recover damages for the emotional distress the bystander suffered as a result of witnessing negligent conduct which caused physical injury to a third person.

If any and all bystanders who witnessed the injury-causing event were permitted to recover for ensuing emotional distress, the defendant’s liability could be out of all proportion to the degree of fault. (Molien v. Kaiser Foundation Hospitals (1980) 27 Cal.3d 916, 922-923 [167 Cal.Rptr. 831, 616 P.2d 813, 16 A.L.R.4th 518]; Amaya v. Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co., supra, 59 Cal.2d 295, 315.) Public policy therefore justified a limitation on the statutory right to recover damages for the emotional distress injury.

We agree with defendants that public policy considerations are relevant in determining whether a particular plaintiff may recover damages for emotional distress. This is true, however, whenever a plaintiff asserts that the negligent conduct of another breached a duty owed to the plaintiff. “The existence of duty is a question of law. (Richards v. Stanley (1954) 43 Cal.2d 60, 66-67 [271 P.2d 23].) ‘[L]egal duties are not discoverable facts of nature, but merely conclusory expressions that, in cases of a particular type, liability should be imposed for damage done.’ (Tarasoff v.

Regents of University of California (1976) 17 Cal.3d 425, 434 [131 Cal.Rptr. 14, 551 P.2d 334, 83 A.L.R.3d 1166].) “It is a fundamental proposition of tort law that one is liable for injuries caused by a failure to exercise reasonable care.

We have said, however, that in considering the existence of ‘duty’ in a given case several factors require consideration including ‘the foreseeability of harm to the plaintiff, the degree of certainty that plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, the policy of preventing future harm, the extent of the burden to the defendant and consequences to the community of imposing a duty to exercise care with resulting liability for breach, and the availability, cost, and prevalence of insurance for the risk involved.” (Thompson v.

County of Alameda (1980) 27 Cal.3d 741, 750 [167 Cal.Rptr. 70, 614 P.2d 728, 12 A.L.R.4th 701].) Application of these principles does not compel a conclusion that the limitations deemed appropriate in Dillon v. Legg, supra, and Thing v. La Chusa, supra, to limit recovery by bystanders should apply in other situations, and particularly in that presented here. The unique context in which this dispute arises is relevant to its resolution.

The model complaint alleges that the mortuary and crematory defendants undertook not simply to provide an expeditious disposal of the remains of plaintiffs’ decedents as a means by which the holders of the statutory rights or the contracting party could fulfill an obligation imposed by the state. Rather, the mortuary defendants undertook to provide appropriate and dignified services of the type that bereaved family members normally anticipate.

Those services are not limited to the conduct of, or facilitating the conduct of, ceremonial or funeral rites, but extend through arranging the commitment of the remains through burial or encryptment, or alternatively cremation and inurnment or other disposition of the ashes of the decedent for whose family the services were performed. (American Funeral Concepts v.

Board of Funeral Directors & Embalmers (1982) 136 Cal.App.3d 303, 306 [186 Cal.Rptr. 196] [“Funeral services” include “burial or cremation.”].) Moreover, the relationship between the family of a decedent and a provider of funeral-related services exists in major part for the purpose of relieving the bereaved relatives of the obligation to personally prepare the remains for burial or cremation. The responsibility is delegated to others because family members do not want to undertake or witness those preparations.

Therefore, it would be the exceptional case in which any family member would observe misconduct of the type alleged in the complaint. In arguing that the right of persons who do not witness the misconduct or its consequences to recover for emotional distress be limited to the statutory right holder or contracting party, defendants and the concurring and dissenting opinion of Justice Kennard invite this court to create an immunity protecting them from liability for the serious emotional distress caused by such egregious, but clandestine, misconduct. This we decline to do.

Were this approach adopted, the persons suffering the greatest harm might well be barred from recovering for their emotional distress while one much less affected would be permitted to recover. It is apparent that the identity of the individual who actually contracts for mortuary or crematory services or holds the statutory right to dispose of the remains of a decedent is incidental, and is not a reliable indicator of the family members who may suffer the greatest emotional distress if the decedent’s remains are mishandled.

One of several children of the decedent may arrange for the services on behalf of all siblings, as well as a surviving spouse or parent of the decedent. If so, the crematory or mortuary assumes a duty to all of these family members. There is no reason to assume that the person who makes the arrangements is any more susceptible to emotional distress if the services are not competently performed than are the other family members.

Indeed, in light of the emotional impact of the death of a close family member of the bereaved, it may be the relative least affected who is chosen by the family to represent them in arranging for funeral and related services. Contrary to the view of Justice Kennard, the services for which the statutory right holder or the family member contracts are rarely performed for the benefit of the contracting party alone.

Recognition that mortuary services are performed for the benefit of family members other than the contracting party or holder of the statutory right is apparent in both past California decisions and those of other jurisdictions, as well as in the legal literature. “Once a mortuary . . . undertakes to accept the care, custody and control of the remains, a duty of care must be found running to the members of decedent’s bereaved family.” (Draper Mortuary v.

Superior Court (1982) 135 Cal.App.3d 533, 538 [185 Cal.Rptr. 396].) The Draper court, like the Court of Appeal in the instant case, recognized that by undertaking to provide mortuary services, the defendant had created a relationship between itself and the family of the decedent by virtue of which an affirmative duty arose to avoid harm to the family members. (135 Cal.App.3d at pp. 537-538.) The Court of Appeal reached a similar conclusion in Quesada v.

Oak Hill Improvement Co., supra, 213 Cal.App.3d 596, holding expressly that a sister and niece of the decedent who had not contracted for funeral services could recover for the emotional distress they suffered as a result of the defendant mortuary’s negligence in the handling of the corpse of their decedent. There, as a result of defendants’ negligence, the body of another person was prepared and buried notwithstanding the protestations of family members that the body was that of a stranger.

The Court of Appeal recognized that the plaintiffs did not seek damages on a Dillon bystander-witness theory, but claimed to be foreseeable direct victims of the defendants’ negligence. The duty identified by the court was the duty of a mortuary to the close relatives of a decedent to properly handle the corpse. The duty existed because it was clearly foreseeable that defendants’ conduct might cause severe mental trauma to persons having a close relationship with the deceased. Defendants rely, however, on Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc., supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 1, and Sinai Temple v.

Kaplan, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 1103, which the Quesada court distinguished or declined to follow. In Cohen v. Groman Mortuary, Inc., supra (hereafter Cohen), the plaintiffs were the mother, two minor children, husband, married daughter, aunt, two brothers and a sister of the decedent. One brother and the sister arranged for the funeral service, during which the defendant mortuary negligently substituted the body of another for plaintiffs’ decedent.

The Court of Appeal held that if the gravamen of the complaint is based on a contractual duty, the duty does not extend to family members other than the contracting party. The court also held that if the action was one in negligence, the defendant mortuary had not breached its duty to those plaintiffs who were not the holders of the statutory right to control disposition of the body. The Cohen court (supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 1) based its decision on the failure of the plaintiffs to define a duty running to them or to describe a right on which their action was predicated. Relying in part on Amaya v.

Home Ice, Fuel & Supply Co., supra, 59 Cal.2d 295, which this court subsequently overruled (in Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d 728), the Court of Appeal held that there was no right to recover for emotional distress suffered as a result of negligent conduct directed at another person. The court did not undertake an independent analysis of the nature of mortuary services or consider whether they are performed for the benefit of persons other than the contracting party or persons expressly identified as intended beneficiaries of the contract.

Cohen, supra, 231 Cal.App.2d 1, reflects an approach recognized in the Restatement Second of Torts,

section 868, that liability for interference with dead bodies runs to the family member having the right to dispose of the remains. However, the statement of the rule is accompanied by a caveat that the authoring American Law Institute took no position on liability to other family members, and is accompanied by a comment noting that at that time the “technical basis of the cause of action [was] the interference with the exclusive right of control of the body ....

In practice the technical right has served as a mere peg upon which to hang damages for the mental distress inflicted upon the survivor.” (Rest.2d Torts, § 868, com. a.) Both the original Restatement position and Cohen are now inconsistent with more recent authority.

Section 868 of the Restatement was changed after the Cohen decision. It now addresses liability for negligent and reckless, as well as intentional, conduct and no longer limits recovery to family members. (Rest.2d Torts (appen.) § 868, reporter’s notes, p. 75.) To the extent that Cohen conflicts with our decision here, it is disapproved. Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d 1103, on which the trial court relied in part, involved a different question, and does not support defendants. The issue was only whether the statutory right holder could state a cause of action against a person who usurped that right.

The minor daughter of decedent sought damages from the father of the decedent, her grandfather, who had contracted for funeral and burial services, for an alleged interference with her statutory right to control the disposition of the decedent’s remains. (§ 7100.) The Court of Appeal held that an action would lie against a close relative, as well as a mortician or cemetery, for tortious interference with the statutory right to dispose of a decedent’s remains, and that improper burial procedures which were contrary to the beliefs of the statutory right holder would constitute interference with that person’s rights. (Sinai Temple v.

Kaplan, supra, 54 Cal.App.3d at p. 1112.) That holding was not remarkable. “[T]he next of kin, while not in the full proprietary sense ‘owning’ the body of the deceased, have property rights in the body which will be protected, and for a violation of which they are entitled to indemnification.” (O’Donnell v. Slack (1899) 123 Cal. 285, 289 [55 P. 906].) The question of recovery for negligence in the performance of funeral and related services did not arise in Sinai Temple v. Kaplan, supra, 54 Cal.3d 1103.

The daughter’s cross-complaint did not allege facts to suggest that defendants had mishandled the corpse or that the daughter had suffered any injury as a result of the manner in which the cross-defendants had performed the funeral and related services. The rights of other relatives to seek damages for negligence in the performance of funeral and related services was not before the court.

When misconduct in the provision of funeral-related services occurs in secret and its consequences are not apparent to members of the decedent’s family, permitting recovery for the emotional distress suffered by all close family members for whom mortuary services are performed when the misconduct comes to light, regardless of which family member held the statutory right or actually contracted for the services, should be allowed.

Recognition of their cause of action is fully consistent with the contemporary principles discussed above by which the existence of a duty to avoid harm to a particular plaintiff is determined. We recognized in Marlene F. v.

Affiliated Psychiatric Medical Clinic, Inc., supra, 48 Cal.3d 583, 590, that damages for severe emotional distress may be recovered “when they result from the breach of a duty owed the plaintiff that is assumed by the defendant or imposed on the defendant as a matter of law, or that arises out of a special relationship between the two.” Defendants here assumed a duty to the close relatives of the decedents for whose benefit they were to provide funeral and/or related services.

They thereby created a special relationship obligating them to perform those services in the dignified and respectful manner the bereaved expect of mortuary and crematory operators. The existence of this duty distinguishes the negligence action pleaded here from those of the bystander-witnesses who were plaintiffs in Thing v. La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, and Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d 728. Tort recovery for breach of a duty arising out of a third party contract is also consistent with well-established California precedent. In Biakanja v.

Irving (1958) 49 Cal.2d 647 [320 P.2d 16, 65 A.L.R.2d 1358], this court held that a notary who negligently prepared a will had assumed and breached a duty to an intended beneficiary.

Notwithstanding the lack of privity, recovery of damages was allowed. “The determination whether in a specific case the defendant will be held liable to a third person not in privity is a matter of policy and involves the balancing of various factors, among which are the extent to which the transaction was intended to affect the plaintiff, the foreseeability of harm to him, the degree of certainty that the plaintiff suffered injury, the closeness of the connection between the defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered, the moral blame attached to the defendant’s conduct, and the policy of preventing future harm.” (Id. at p. 650.) In Biakanja v.

Irving, as here, a benefit to the plaintiff was the purpose of the contract and the damage was foreseeable. (See also J’Aire Corp. v. Gregory (1979) 24 Cal.3d 799, 804 [157 Cal.Rptr. 407, 598 P.2d 60].) Carolina Biological Supply Company (Carolina), which also contends that the Thing v. La Chusa and Dillon v. Legg limitations should apply, argues that even if this court disagrees with that claim, the statutory right holders lack standing to seek damages from it on a negligence theory because no special relationship existed between them.

We agree that Carolina, unlike the other defendants, did not assume any duty related to the delivery of funeral-related services. One theory on which it is sued, however, is that it negligently contracted for and purchased human organs from the crematory defendants under circumstances in which it knew or should have known that the crematories had not complied with the laws of this state, which prohibit removal and sale of human organs absent the consent of the decedent or the statutory right holder.

Plaintiffs do not seek to impute liability to Carolina for the negligence of the crematory defendants, but to hold Carolina liable on a theory that it encouraged or induced the unlawful conduct of the crematory defendants. Negligence in procuring injury-producing conduct of another may subject the negligent actor to liability for that conduct. “A’s own wrong may have contributed in some way to the causing of harm to C through B's wrongful conduct.

A may have commanded or procured that very wrong.” (5 Harper et al., The Law of Torts (2d ed. 1986) § 26.1, p. 3.) Where a defendant has induced another to act in circumstances under which it is foreseeable that the conduct will cause injury to a third party, liability is found. This principle, recognized in

section 302A of the Second Restatement of Torts underlies the decision of this court in Pool v. City of Oakland (1986) 42 Cal.3d 1051 [232 Cal.Rptr. 528, 728 P.2d 1163], There we held that a supermarket which negligently accused a customer of felonious conduct and summoned police, could foresee that the resulting police investigation and arrest of the innocent plaintiff would cause emotional distress for which the supermarket was liable.

While the police conduct may have been wrongful, the defendant was a proximate cause of the injury. (Id. at pp. 1064, 1065.) “If the likelihood that a third person may react in a particular manner is a hazard which makes the actor negligent, such reaction whether innocent or negligent does not prevent the actor from being liable for the harm caused thereby.” (Weirum v.

RKO General, Inc. (1975) 15 Cal.3d 40, 47 [123 Cal.Rptr. 468, 539 P.2d 36] [duty to decedent killed in auto crash established by foreseeability that inviting members of radio audience to be first to arrive at location would encourage reckless driving]. See also, Ditez v. Illinois Bell Telephone Co. (1987) 154 Ill.App.3d 544 [507 N.E.2d 24, 26] [defendant liable for trespass if defendant knows that party with whom defendent contracts will enter another’s land to perform contract without obtaining required consents]; Clark v. Library of Congress (D.C.

Cir. 1984) 750 F.2d 89, 98 [242 App.D.C. 241] [inducing violation of plaintiff’s civil rights].) The allegations of the PFAC may also allege, or might be amended to allege, liability on a joint enterprise theory.

The joint enterprise theory, while rarely invoked outside the automobile accident context, is also well established (see Prosser & Keeton, Torts (5th ed. 1984) § 72, p. 516-521) and recognized in this state as an exception to the general rule that imputed liability for the negligence of another will not be recognized. “It is only where a person actually acts through another to accomplish his own ends that the law will or should impose such vicarious liability. Right of control over the other person is a test of the required relationship, but it is not itself the justification for imposing liability.

Aside from such legal relationships as master and servant, principal and agent, etc., before the courts will find that the parties were joint adventurers there must be clear evidence of a community of interest in a common undertaking in which each participant has or exercises the right of equal or joint control and direction. [Citations.] A joint venture is sort of a mutual agency, akin to a limited partnership. [Citations.] It is not sufficient that the parties have certain plans in common, but the community of interest must be such that [each] is entitled to be heard in the control [of the enterprise]. [Citations.] Most of the cases indicate that the common interest must be of some business nature.” (Roberts v.

Craig (1954) 124 Cal.App.2d 202, 208 [268 P.2d 500, 43 A.L.R.2d 1146]. See also, King v. Ladyman (1978) 81 Cal.App.3d 837, 842-843 [146 Cal.Rptr. 782]; DeSuza v. Andersack (1976) 63 Cal.App.3d 694 [133 Cal.Rptr. 920]. See also 6 Witkin,

Summary of Cal. Law (9th ed. 1988) Torts, § 1008, pp. 399-400.) We cannot say that it was not reasonably foreseeable to Carolina that its conduct in offering to buy substantial quantities of human organs and body parts from the crematory defendants would induce those defendants to obtain the organs and body parts in a manner that would cause extreme emotional distress to the

section 7100 right holders. If, under the circumstances, Carolina should have foreseen that the crematory defendants would violate the law, then its conduct may be found to be negligent per se.

Section 7051 makes the unauthorized removal of a body part with the intent to sell it a felony. As we explain below, the statutes governing the disposition of human remains exist not only to ensure removal of dead bodies and protect public health, but also to prevent invasion of the religious, moral, and esthetic sensibilities of the survivors. These laws were enacted to prevent the type of harm alleged here to the statutory rights holders, and create a duty to those persons. (See 6 Witkin,

Summary of Cal. Law, Torts, supra, §§ 820, 833, at pp. 173,189.) Obtaining the consent of the statutory right holder to the removal for sale of body organs is an obligation imposed by law, for the violation of which a civil action will lie. (Civ. Code, §§ 1427, 1428.) No contract or special relationship is necessary to the recognition of a duty to prevent the harm sought to be avoided by the statute. Recognition of this rule is so well established that the common law doctrine of negligence per se, of which it is a part, has been codified in California as a rebuttable presumption of negligence. (Evid.

Code, § 669.) Whether Carolina by the terms of its contracts induced the unlawful conduct of the crematory defendants, or exercised joint control over the manner in which the crematory defendants removed organs and thus was engaged in a joint enterprise, and negligently failed to ensure that it was purchasing only organs removed for sale pursuant to California law, and thus was a proximate cause of the emotional distress suffered by plaintiffs, are factual questions to be decided in later proceedings. We hold here only that the statutory right holders have standing to seek damages from Carolina. B.

Policy Considerations in Recognition of Duty. The principles which guide the court in determining whether a duty exists fully support our conclusion that defendants owed a duty to the plaintiffs, who have standing in this case. . 1. Foreseeability and certainty of injury in funeral-related services—mortuary and crematory defendants.

The mortuary and crematory defendants do not dispute the foreseeability that mishandling human remains in the manner alleged in the model complaint is likely to cause serious emotional distress to members of the decedent’s immediate family regardless of whether they observe the actual negligent conduct or injury to the remains of their decedent.

Even in the context of an action for breach of contract, where recovery of damages solely for emotional distress resulting from a breach is not normally allowed, the provision of services related to the disposition of human remains has been distinguished because of the unique nature of the services. This court so held in Chelini v. Nieri (1948) 32 Cal.2d 480 [196 P.2d 915], where defendant mortician breached a contract to preserve the body of the plaintiff’s mother.

The court held that recovery for emotional distress, there accompanied by symptoms of physical illness, was permitted in that context because the contract was directly related to the comfort, happiness, or personal welfare of the plaintiff. More recently, in Allen v. Jones (1980) 104 Cal.App.3d 207, 211 [163 Cal.Rptr. 445], e.g., the defendant operators of a mortuary contracted to ship the remains of plaintiff’s decedent brother to another state. The remains were lost in transit.

The Court of Appeal held that the contract was one which so affected the vital concerns of an individual that recovery for emotional distress was permitted, explaining: “A contract whereby a mortician agrees to prepare a body for burial is one in which it is reasonably foreseeable that breach may cause mental anguish to the decedent’s bereaved relations. ‘One who prepares a human body for burial and conducts a funeral usually deals with the living in their most difficult and delicate moments ....

The exhibition of callousness or indifference, the offer of insult and indignity, can, of course, inflict no injury on the dead, but they can visit agony akin to torture on the living. So true is this that the chief asset of a mortician and the most conspicuous element of his advertisement is his consideration for the afflicted. A decent respect for their feelings is implied in every contract for his services.’ (Fitzsimmons v.

Olinger Mortuary Ass’n. (1932) 91 Colo. 544 [17 P.2d 535, 536-537].)” In a similar vein, another court has stated: “The tenderest feelings of the human heart center around the remains of the dead. When the defendants contracted with plaintiff to inter the body of her deceased husband in a workmanlike manner they did so with the knowledge that she was the widow and would naturally and probably suffer mental anguish if they failed to fulfill their contractual obligation in the manner here charged.....(Lamm v. Shingleton (1949) 231 N.C. 10 [55 S.E.2d 810, 813-814]; Allen v.

Jones, supra, 104 Cal.App.3d 207, 211-212.) In all of the reported cases called to our attention, however, the relatives who were permitted to recover for negligence in the conduct of funeral and/or related services were aware that the services were being performed, and were persons for whose benefit the defendants had undertaken to provide the services. Recognition that it is foreseeable that close relatives of the deceased may suffer severe emotional distress as a result of negligence in the manner in which the corpse of their decedent is handled was in that context.

Plaintiffs identify no case in which persons who were not contemporaneously aware of both the death of their close relative and the nature of the funeral-related services that were to be performed have been held to be foreseeable victims of negligence in the conduct of those services. We agree, therefore, with defendants’ observation that the potential plaintiffs who could seek damages under the decision of the Court of Appeal is not appropriately limited.

Under that court’s decision persons who were infants or even unborn at the time the funeral-related services were performed, and others who were unaware of either the death or the nature of the services performed, could sue long after the services were completed on learning of an impropriety in the disposition of the remains. It would be unreasonable to consider those persons to be among the close relatives for whom the funeral-related services were performed, and to impose liability to them upon defendants.

They are not persons for whose benefit the defendants undertook to perform services and thus no duty was owed to them. They are not foreseeable victims of the misconduct alleged in the model complaint. It is foreseeable, however, that close relatives who are aware that funeral-related services are to be undertaken, but who are unable to or do not want to observe the manner in which remains are prepared for burial or cremation, and thus do not observe the mistreatment of their decedent’s remains, may suffer serious emotional distress on learning that the decedent’s remains have been mistreated. 2. Moral blame.

Here, there is no question but that the conduct of the crematory defendants, and that of the mortuary and Carolina defendants that are alleged to have known or should have known that the crematory defendants were engaging in misconduct, was outrageous and reprehensible. Defendants concede as much. They seek to limit liability to the statutory right holders or those who contract for funeral-related services on the basis that the policy of the state recognizes only the rights of those persons. We disagree.

Provision by statute for the disposal of human remains, and the imposition of duties and recognition of priority of right (§§ 7100, 7151), does not reflect a legislative intent or policy to protect only the

section 7100 right holder or contracting party from the emotional trauma that may result from mistreatment or desecration of human remains. The statutory scheme establishes only an orderly process by which to ensure that proper disposition is made of human remains. Other statutes reflect a policy of respecting the religious, ethical, and emotional concerns of close relatives and others having an interest in assuring that the disposition of human remains is accomplished in a dignified and respectful manner. Of particular significance is

section 7054.7 which prohibits, absent consent by the statutory right holder, both multiple cremations and the commingling of cremated remains. Provision for consent demonstrates that the state has no interest itself in preventing multiple cremations or commingling of cremated remains. The prohibition evidently exists out of respect for the sensibilities of the surviving relatives.

Section 7152 limits anatomical gifts if it is known that the decedent “was a member of a religion, church, sect, or denomination which relies solely upon prayer for the healing of disease or which has religious tenets that would be violated by the disposition of the human body or parts thereof . . . .” Again, a policy of respecting religious beliefs with regard to the disposition of human remains is manifest. Similar recognition that the sensibilities of all survivors merit protection is found in other legislation.

Section 7050.5 prohibits desecration of human buried remains, and makes special provision for proper disposition of Native American remains discovered during an excavation. The Legislature’s findings include express recognition of Native American “concerns regarding the need for sensitive treatment and disposition” of such remains. (Stats. 1982, ch. 1492, § 1, subd. (2) p. 5778. Cf. Bock v. County of Los Angeles (1983) 150 Cal.App.3d 65 [197 Cal.Rptr. 470] [statutes governing coroner’s records not designed to protect against risk of emotional distress to relative of decedent who was not promptly identified].)

Section 8115 permits cities and counties to establish standards governing interment in order to ensure, inter alia, “decent and respectful treatment of human remains,” and

section 8101 prohibits interference with persons engaged in funeral services or interments. Defendants’ conduct transgressed this clearly expressed state policy giving recognition to, and imposing on providers of fiineral-related services a duty to respect, the expectations of both decedents and their survivors that the remains will be accorded dignified and appropriate treatment. Imposition of civil liability for misconduct of the type alleged is consistent with the degree of moral blame attached to that conduct, and with the goal of deterring future harm of a similar nature. 3.

Burden and consequences to the community. Defendants contend that holding them liable to the plaintiffs who seek damages in this case would impose an intolerable burden which would, in turn, result in detriment to the public by decreasing the availability of and/or increasing the cost of funeral-related services. We disagree. Limiting the plaintiffs to those close relatives who were aware that the services were being performed and for whom the services were performed significantly reduces defendants’ potential liability for negligently inflicted emotional distress.

The egregious and intentional nature of the conduct at issue suggests that imposing liability does not threaten defendants with future or continuing liability for conduct over which they have no control. Liability for negligently inflicted emotional distress exists only for those acts that would foreseeably cause serious emotional distress to foreseeable victims to whom a duty is owed.

While the intentional nature of the conduct involved suggests that insurance may not be available as a means by which to defray the expense, the cost to defendants of avoiding or preventing similar misconduct in the future is minimal. No policy suggests that defendants should be shielded from the consequences of their conduct by refusing to recognize the right of these plaintiffs to recover for the severe emotional distress they have suffered as a direct result of defendants’ misconduct. 4. Disproportionate culpability. Defendants argue that if the reasoning and rule of Thing v.

La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, 667-668, and Ochoa v. Superior Court (1985) 39 Cal.3d 159, 165, footnote 6 [216 Cal.Rptr. 661, 703 P.2d 1], limiting recovery for negligent infliction of emotional distress to those who contemporaneously observe both the negligent act and the injury it causes is not applied to the claims of these plaintiffs, then they will suffer liability that is out of all proportion to their culpability.

Those cases did distinguish a plaintiff whose emotional distress was engendered by witnessing serious injury to a close relative from one who suffered emotional distress on learning of the injury from another person. The defendants in those cases had no preexisting duty to the plaintiff, however. Plaintiffs here do not seek relief on the basis of witnessing the injury of another, but for an injury caused by the breach of a duty owed directly to each plaintiff. The Thing v. La Chusa limitation on Dillon v. Legg (supra, 68 Cal.2d 728) recovery is not appropriate for that reason.

Moreover, because misconduct of the type alleged here—mistreatment of human remains by a crematory— while likely to cause severe emotional distress, would rarely, if ever, take place within the immediate presence and view of the foreseeable victims, providers of funeral-related services would avoid liability for injuries caused by their outrageous conduct if a similar limitation were applied. No public policy supports the immunity defendants seek. Defendants’ attempt to analogize the emotional distress injuries alleged here to that in issue in Thing v. La Chusa, supra, and Ochoa v.

Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.3d 159, also fails for other reasons. In Thing v. La Chusa, supra, we restricted recovery to close relatives who are percipient witnesses to the negligent injury of the tortfeasor’s immediate victim in order to avoid unlimited liability out of all proportion to the culpability of the negligent actor, and in recognition that the percipient witness usually suffers an emotional impact beyond that suffered whenever one learns from another of the death or injury of a loved one. (Thing v.

La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, 667.) Here, by contrast, the emotional injury is suffered by persons for whom the defendants have undertaken to provide a service, the very purpose of which is to alleviate existing and avoid future emotional distress arising from the death. The concerns which justified the restrictions that defendants’ urge us to extend to this case are not present. The potential plaintiffs are limited to those for whom defendants performed a service.

The defendants’ potential liability is not out of proportion to their conduct, and it is not based simply on the type of emotional distress the plaintiffs could be anticipated to suffer as a result of the death of a loved one. Thus, permitting these victims to recover for the emotional distress they suffer does not threaten, as was the case in Thing v. La Chusa, unlimited liability for conduct that is simply negligent. Intentional and outrageous conduct on the part of the crematory defendants, of which the mortuary and Carolina defendants knew or should have known, is alleged.

The class of potential plaintiffs we approve here is limited in number since it encompasses only those close relatives who were aware both of the death of a loved one and the nature of the funeral-related services that were to be performed on their behalf. Defendants will not be liable, as they fear, to persons not yet born when the misconduct occurred, or who had no knowledge that their relative had died until they learned of the mistreatment of the remains. They will not be liable to other family members who are upset by the type of services for which the contracting party arranged.

Nor is the number of potential plaintiffs significant. Defendants’ purported liability to the relatives of more than 16,000 decedents is not a factor arising from a failure to narrow the class of potential plaintiffs. Rather, it is a factor of the number of decedents whose remains defendants allegedly mistreated. C. Causation: Connection Between Conduct of Mortuary and Crematory Defendants and Injury.

Our conclusion that plaintiffs have standing as direct victims of defendants’ misconduct does not resolve that part of defendants’ claim that plaintiffs lack standing, in which they observe that plaintiffs allege only emotional distress caused by media reports of defendants’ misconduct. We consider this aspect of defendants’ argument as one asserting that the complaint fails to state a cause of action because it does not allege facts sufficient to establish that plaintiffs’ injury was caused by the breach of the duty owed to plaintiffs.

A plaintiff seeking to recover damages from a negligent defendant must allege a causal connection between the negligence and the plaintiff’s injury. (Dunn v. Dufficy (1924) 194 Cal. 383, 386 [228 P. 1029].) A plaintiff “must allege a causal connection between the negligence . . . and the injury he suffered. Ordinarily that is accomplished by implication from the juxtaposition of the allegations of wrongful conduct and harm. (See 4 Witkin, Cal.

Procedure [(3d ed. 1985)] Pleading, §§ 561-566, pp. 600-606.) However, where the pleaded facts of negligence and injury do not naturally give rise to an inference of causation the plaintiff must plead specific facts affording an inference the one caused the others.” (Blain v.

Doctor’s Co. (1990) 222 Cal.App.3d 1048, 1066 [272 Cal.Rptr. 250].) Although introduced into these proceedings by the trial court as a “standing” question, the trial court did so on a theory that plaintiffs’ standing to recover from defendants for the emotional injuries they have suffered turns on whether all of the individual plaintiffs and the class members have alleged or may be able to state a cause of action against defendants. To do so they must allege facts to establish that causal connection.

As did the Court of Appeal, therefore, we consider the issue as if it had been raised by a demurrer to the complaint. We agree with the defendants that media or other secondhand reports about psychologically devastating events are not a sufficient basis for imposition of liability for emotional distress suffered by persons who are upset thereby. Damages may be recovered only for an injury resulting from defendant’s breach of a duty owed to the plaintiff. The duty here was to provide respectful and dignified treatment of the remains of the plaintiffs’ particular decedents.

Media reports of a general pattern of misconduct are not sufficient, in and of themselves, to establish that defendants’ misconduct included mishandling of the remains of each plaintiff’s decedent. Thus, an allegation that a plaintiff suffered emotional distress on learning of that pattern of misconduct does not allege injury caused by a breach of a duty owed to the plaintiffs. Plaintiffs allege, however, that they learned from the media reports that the remains of “their” decedents had been improperly treated.

The ability of each plaintiff to prove either that at the time the plaintiff learned of the misconduct he or she knew or had substantial reason to believe that the decedent was a victim of defendants’ misconduct, or that the alleged continuing emotional distress each plaintiff suffers is based on knowledge that the decedent’s remains have been mishandled, is a question that is not relevant at this stage of the proceedings. The question is only whether the complaint alleges a sufficiently direct causation between defendants’ conduct and the emotional distress suffered by plaintiffs. We conclude that it does.

We are not persuaded by defendants’ argument that permitting recovery in this case will create tort liability for the emotional impact of reports of disturbing events carried on the evening news, and for conduct which occurred many years in the past. If plaintiffs are unable to establish a direct causal connection between defendants’ misconduct and the emotional distress suffered by plaintiffs, then they may not recover.

A plaintiff who is unable to establish that he or she suffered severe emotional distress, and that the emotional distress was caused by a well-founded substantial certainty that his or her decedent’s remains were among those reportedly mistreated, may not recover damages. A generalized concern that the remains of a relative may have been involved, arising out of a media report of a pattern of misconduct, is insufficient to satisfy the requirement that there be a direct connection between a defendant’s conduct and the injury suffered by the plaintiff.

It does not supply a necessary element—that the injury, here emotional distress, be caused by a breach of the defendant’s duty to the particular plaintiff. (See Khan v. Shiley (1990) 217 Cal.App.3d 848 [266 Cal.Rptr. 106]; Stahl v.

William Necker, Inc. (1918) 184 A.D. 85, 92 [171 N.Y.S. 728, 733].) On the other hand, were we to accept the suggestions of Justice Kennard that these plaintiffs be permitted to recover unless defendants prove that their decedents’ remains were not among those mistreated, a plaintiff could recover damages for emotional distress based on nothing more than a media report of misconduct that may have involved the plaintiff’s loved one.

The source of a plaintiff’s knowledge of misconduct which cannot be readily observed, and the time at which the knowledge was acquired, do not otherwise affect the plaintiff’s standing to seek relief except insofar as the statute of limitations may bar the action. These factors instead go to the reasonableness of a plaintiff’s claim to have suffered severe emotional distress and thus present issues for the trier of fact. We cannot say as a matter of law, as defendants would have us do, that belated discovery of mistreatment of the remains of a close relative cannot cause severe emotional distress.

That suits may be filed by some persons as to whom the degree of suffering claimed is unreasonable is not a basis for denying relief to all. (Dillon v. Legg, supra, 68 Cal.2d 728, 736-739.) V Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress There is merit in defendants’ claim that the Court of Appeal erred in concluding that because the mishandling of the remains of plaintiffs’ decedents was intentional and outrageous, all family members and close friends of the decedents could recover damages for emotional distress.

The Court of Appeal reached that conclusion upon reasoning that defendants’ conduct established the elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress. The complaint does not allege, however, that any plaintiff was present when the misconduct occurred, or that defendants or any of them acted with the intent of causing emotional distress to the plaintiffs or knowledge that the conduct was substantially certain to cause distress to any particular plaintiff.

The essence of the allegations is simply that the conduct was intentional, was outrageous, and was substantially certain to cause extreme emotional distress to relatives and close friends of the deceased.

The elements of the tort of intentional infliction of emotional distress are: “ ‘(1) extreme and outrageous conduct by the defendant with the intention of causing, or reckless disregard of the probability of causing, emotional distress; (2) the plaintiff’s suffering severe or extreme emotional distress; and (3) actual and proximate causation of the emotional distress by the defendant’s outrageous conduct. . . .’ Conduct to be outrageous must be so extreme as to exceed all bounds of that usually tolerated in a civilized community.” (Davidson v.

City of Westminister (1982) 32 Cal.3d 197, 209 [185 Cal.Rptr. 252, 649 P.2d 894].) The defendant must have engaged in “conduct intended to inflict injury or engaged in with the realization that injury will result.” (Id. at p. 210.) It is not enough that the conduct be intentional and outrageous. It must be conduct directed at the plaintiff, or occur in the presence of a plaintiff of whom the defendant is aware.

Past decisions of this court have invariably presupposed that the defendant’s misconduct was directed to and was intended to cause severe or extreme emotional distress to a particular individual or, when reckless disregard was the theory of recovery, that the defendant directed the conduct at, and in conscious disregard of the threat to, a particular individual. In the seminal case permitting recovery even absent physical manifestation of the injury, State Rubbish etc. Assn. v.

Siliznoff (1952) 38 Cal.2d 330, 337 [240 P.2d 282], we observed that theretofore California had allowed recovery when “physical injury resulted from intentionally subjecting the plaintiff to serious mental distress.” There, of course, agents of the defendant had intentionally caused the plaintiff to suffer extreme fright for the purpose of gaining a business advantage of the particular plaintiff. Similarly, in Cervantez v. J. C.

Penney Co. (1979) 24 Cal.3d 579 [156 Cal.Rptr. 198, 595 P.2d 975], in which reckless disregard was a theory, the misconduct was the arrest of the plaintiff with knowledge that he had not committed an offense or disregard of whether he had. In Agarwal v. Johnson (1979) 25 Cal.3d 932 [160 Cal.Rptr. 141, 603 P.2d 58], and Alcorn v. Anbro Engineering, Inc. (1970) 2 Cal.3d 493 [86 Cal.Rptr. 88, 468 P.2d 216], racial epithets were directed at the plaintiff. In Nally v.

Grace Community Church (1988) 47 Cal.3d 278 [253 Cal.Rptr. 97, 763 P.2d 948], in which a wrongful death action was predicated on a theory of intentional infliction of emotional distress, defendant’s conduct was directed specifically at the plaintiff’s decedent during his lifetime. In Cole v. Fair Oaks Fire Protection Dist. (1987) 43 Cal.3d 148 [233 Cal.Rptr. 308, 729 P.2d 743], defendants continually harassed the plaintiff. Davidson v. City of Westminster, supra, 32 Cal.3d 197, is particularly instructive.

There the plaintiff sought damages for intentional infliction of emotional distress based on the conduct of police officers who failed to intervene or protect her when they observed an assault suspect enter the public laundromat; the suspect had stabbed the plaintiff while the defendants had the premises under surveillance.

We held that in the absence of an intent on the part of the defendant officers to injure the plaintiff, their conduct was not the kind of extreme and outrageous conduct that would give rise to liability for intentional infliction of emotional distress. (Id. at p. 210.) The requirement that the defendant’s conduct be directed primarily at the plaintiff is a factor which distinguishes intentional infliction of emotional distress from the negligent infliction of such injury. We explained this distinction in Ochoa v. Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.3d 159.

There, the plaintiffs sought damages for the emotional distress they endured when over the course of several days they observed the deteriorating condition of their teenage son and the refusal of defendants to provide or permit them to provide needed medical treatment. Theories of negligent and intentional infliction of emotional distress were among the causes of action pled.

This court held that while the complaint stated a cause of action for negligence, the elements of a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress were not stated because the defendant’s acts were directed at the child, not the parents. “Plaintiffs appear to assume that a cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress may be established on the same theory as that for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The two torts are entirely different. (See 4 Witkin,

Summary of Cal. Law (8th ed. 1974) § 233 et seq. and § 548 et seq.) . . . “A cause of action for intentional infliction of emotional distress must allege facts showing outrageous conduct which is intentional or reckless and which is outside the bounds of decency.

It has been said in summarizing the cases discussing intentional infliction of emotional distress that ‘the rule which seems to have emerged is that there is liability for conduct exceeding all bounds usually tolerated by decent society, of a nature which is especially calculated to cause, and does cause, mental distress of a very serious kind.’ [Citations.] Here, although defendants’ conduct did cause the plaintiffs untold distress, it is evident that the defendants acted negligently rather than with the purpose of causing the plaintiffs emotional distress.” (Ochoa v.

Superior Court, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 165, fn. 5.) In Ochoa, the defendants’ conduct was directed primarily at plaintiffs’ decedent. (39 Cal.3d at pp. 172-173.) In concluding that recovery was not available under an intentional infliction of emotional distress theory, we noted that to the extent such recovery had been allowed, it has been limited to “ ‘the most extreme cases of violent attack, where there is some especial likelihood of fright or shock.’ ” (Id. at p. 165, fn. 5. Accord, Coon v.

Joseph (1987) 192 Cal.App.3d 1269 [237 Cal.Rptr. 873].) Recovery on an intentional infliction of emotional distress theory and based on reckless conduct has been allowed in the funeral-related services context. (See 2 Harper et al., The Law of Torts, supra, § 9.4 at pp. 621-624, and cases cited.) However, as Professors Prosser and Keeton note, the cases which describe the tort as intentional mishandling of a corpse actually seek to protect the personal feelings of the survivors.

Therefore the tort is properly categorized as intentional infliction of emotional distress, and presupposes action directed at the plaintiff or undertaken with knowledge of the likelihood that the plaintiff will suffer emotional distress. (Prosser & Keeton, Torts, supra, at pp. 60-63.) These authors acknowledge the problems associated with permitting recovery for action that is not directed at the plaintiff or undertaken with knowledge of the likelihood of harm to the plaintiff, noting the doctrine of transferred intent is inappropriate in this context.

They suggest that to justify recovery the action must be directed to the plaintiff, and if reckless conduct is the basis for recovery, the plaintiff is usually present at the time of the conduct and is known by the defendant to be present. (See also, Prosser, Insult and Outrage (1956) 44 Cal.L.Rev. 40, 56-59.) We agree. “The law limits claims of intentional infliction of emotional distress to egregious conduct toward plaintiff proximate!y caused by defendant.” (Miller v. National Broadcasting Co. (1986) 187 Cal.App.3d 1463, 1489 [232 Cal.Rptr. 668, 69 A.L.R.4th 1027].

Italics added, original italics omitted.) The only exception to this rule is that recognized when the defendant is aware, but acts with reckless disregard, of the plaintiff and the probabilitythat his or her conduct will cause severe emotional distress to that plaintiff. (Ledger v. Tippitt (1985) 164 Cal.App.3d 625, 640-642 [210 Cal.Rptr. 814]; Taylor v.

Vallelunga (1959) 171 Cal.App.2d 107, 109 [339 P.2d 910].) Where reckless disregard of the plaintiff’s interests is the theory of recovery, the presence of the plaintiff at the time the outrageous conduct occurs is recognized as the element establishing a higher degree of culpability which, in turn, justifies recovery of greater damages by„a broader group of plaintiffs than allowed on a negligent infliction of emotional distress theory. (See Rest.2d Torts, § 868, com. g.) Plaintiffs here have not alleged that the conduct of any of the defendants was directed primarily at them, was calculated to cause them severe emotional distress, or was done with knowledge of their presence and of a substantial certainty that they would suffer severe emotional injury.

We conclude, therefore, that the model complaint does not establish that any of the plaintiffs has standing to sue for intentional infliction of emotional distress. Because this is a coordination proceeding, however, whether to permit further amendment should be left to the discretion of the trial court. VI Devolution The Court of Appeal held that, on the death of a statutory right holder, the

section 7100 power to control the disposition of remains devolves pursuant to the priorities established by that section. Defendants Laurieanne Lamb Sconce, Jerry Sconce, and the Lamb Funeral Home suggest that this holding is ambiguous and if read to permit a succession of persons to sue for their individual emotional distress would create a never ending chain of plaintiffs. The holding that the right devolves is consistent with the legislative intent that there be a person having both the obligation and the right to dispose of human remains.

Our conclusion that relatives other than the statutory right holder have standing to sue, but that only those persons who were aware of the funeral-related services to be performed at the time the services were performed have standing, eliminates any potential ambiguity. VII Disposition The judgment of the Court of Appeal is modified to direct the superior court to conform its order on standing to sue to reflect the views expressed herein. Lucas, C. J., Panelli, J., George, J., and Tlirner (Paul A.), J., concurred. See California Rules of Court, rule 1501 et seq., and in particular rule 1541(a)(4).

The model complaint is the second amended complaint. A proposed fourth amended complaint (PPAC), which has not been filed because proceedings below are stayed, was also considered by the Court of Appeal in the interests of judicial economy. The action has not yet been certified as a class action. The trial court’s request for briefing on the question of standing appears to have been made in anticipation of that ruling. Unless otherwise indicated, all statutory references are to the Health and Safety Code. Persons claiming rights under

section 7100 are referred to occasionally as “statutory right holders.” The model complaint alleges that the plaintiff class consists of at least 6,050 members. Defendants state that the 15 coordinated lawsuits allege misconduct in the disposition of 16,500 decedents, thus creating a potential class of much greater magnitude.

The standing of friends of the decedents to sue for emotional distress suffered as a result of intentional mishandling of remains was not raised in the trial court by the allegations of the model complaint, and thus was not within the scope of the alternative writ issued by the Court of Appeal to review the trial court order. Plaintiffs proposed an amendment to the PFAC which would name as an individual plaintiff one person who is described as a friend of one decedent. The Court of Appeal held that plaintiffs could amend the complaint to name an aggrieved friend as a party.

The Court of Appeal may have addressed the issue because the petition for writ of mandamus related to a ruling in a coordination proceeding. Rule 1505 of the California Rules of Court recognizes that writ review may be sought of orders in coordination proceedings.

No special rules govern appellate review of rulings in coordination proceedings, but the Court of Appeal’s willingness to anticipate and dispose of issues that might arise on the filing of amended complaints subsequent to disposition of the writ proceeding comports with the purpose of coordination of civil actions, which includes the efficient use of judicial resources. (Code Civ. Proc., § 404.1.) Consideration of the PFAC was appropriate for that reason. The PFAC adds as named plaintiffs individuals who are representatives of the various classes and subclasses identified in the complaint.

The Court of Appeal permitted amendment of the petition for writ of mandate, which had initially sought relief on behalf of an unidentified class of persons denied relief by virtue of the trial court order on standing, to identify the petitioners by name. We therefore reject that claim made by some crematory defendants that the mandate petitioners are unidentified persons who cannot establish that they have a beneficial interest in the subject matter of the petition. (Code Civ. Proc., § 1086; Carsten v.

Psychology Examining Com. (1980) 27 Cal.3d 793, 796 [166 Cal.Rptr. 844, 614 P.2d 276].) Our disposition of other issues makes unnecessary the consideration of defendants’ argument that the ruling on the standing of friends was error. Although neither Carolina Biological Supply Company nor Gabriel petitioned for review, and plaintiffs did not identify this ruling as an additional issue for review in their answer to the petitions for review by the other defendants, Carolina Biological Supply Company has been permitted to file a brief on the merits in this proceeding. (See Woods v.

Young (1991) 53 Cal.3d 315, 333 [279 Cal.Rptr. 613, 807 P.2d 455], conc. opn. of Baxter, J.) Gabriel has not appeared in this court. The company argues that it is sued only on a theory that it negligently failed to discover the misconduct of the other defendants. The complaint refutes that claim, however. It alleges statutory violations, and seeks to hold all defendants liable on agency theories of recovery.

The remaining causes of action, none of which is directly at issue here except to the extent that the seventh cause of action for negligence overlapped or duplicated the tenth cause of action, sought declaratory and injunctive relief with respect to written and oral contracts, and sought damages for breach of contract, breach of the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, breach of fiduciary duty, fraud and deceit, negligent misrepresentation, and unfair business practices.

The person who signs an authorization for interment also warrants the identity of the persons whose remains are to be interred. (§ 7110.) The person who buries cremated remains at sea must file a verified statement with the registrar of births and deaths stating, inter alia, the name of the deceased person. (§ 7117.) Legislation adopted in 1988 makes removal of dental gold or silver from remains without written permission a felony. (§ 7051.5.) The theft of other articles of value from a dead body may be either a felony or misdemeanor. (Pen.

Code, § 642.) We express no view on this holding, but note that none of the contracts for mortuary services was set forth in the model complaint or attached to and incorporated by reference into the complaint. Our conclusions here regarding the nature of contracts for mortuary and crematory services may be inconsistent with those of the Court of Appeal on this point. The family members whose right to recover was confirmed in Thing were “relatives residing in the same household or parents, siblings, children, and grandparents of the victim.” (Thing v.

La Chusa, supra, 48 Cal.3d 644, 668, fn. 10.) Observing that the direct victim in Thing was a child, the Court of Appeal reasoned that we had overlooked the possibility that a grandchild who was a bystander witness might suffer equivalent mental distress, and held that grandchildren should also be considered close relatives. The restriction of recovery from the Carolina defendants to statutory right holders followed from the conclusion of the Court of Appeal that no special relationship existed between plaintiffs and those defendants. Plaintiffs do not challenge that aspect of the decision.

This common misunderstanding is reflected in the opinion of Justice Kennard. The misconduct alleged here was not as she suggests, “negligent mishandling of human remains.” The cre

[…]