write 2 paragraphsidentifying and summarizing the court's holding, andexplaining the reasoning the court usedto support that holding.

------------------------------------------------

Moss v. Batesville Casket Co.935 So. 2d 393 (Miss. Sup. Ct. 2006)

Nancy Moss Minton, a Mississippi resident, died on March 7, 1999. Her four adult children became the plaintiffs in the lawsuit described below and will be referred to as "the plaintiffs" during this summary of the facts. The plaintiffs engaged Ott & Lee Funeral Home, a Mississippi firm, to handle the arrangements for their mother's burial. From the models on Ott & Lee's showroom floor, the plaintiffs selected a cherry wood casket manufactured by Batesville Casket Co. According to the deposition testimony later provided by each of the plaintiffs, aesthetic reasons played a key role in the choice of the cherry wood casket. The casket "looked like" their mother and "suited her" because all the furniture in her home was cherry wood. The plaintiffs contended that Ott & Lee told them the casket was "top of the line."

At the time the wooden casket was selected, Ott & Lee informed the plaintiffs that unlike a metal casket, a wooden casket could not be sealed. The plaintiffs testified in their depositions that Ott & Lee so informed them and that at Ott & Lee's suggestion, they chose to use a concrete vault with the wooden casket. According to the plaintiffs, Ott & Lee said the vault would keep the pressure of the dirt off the casket and would prevent water from reaching the casket. Ott & Lee made no representations to the plaintiffs about the ability of a wooden casket to preserve the remains contained inside it. The plaintiffs made no inquiry about whether the casket could or would preserve the remains.

The wooden casket chosen by the plaintiffs carried Batesville's written limited warranty, which specified that Batesville would replace the casket if, "at any time prior to the interment of this casket," defects in materials or workmanship were discovered. Thus, Batesville expressly warranted the casket until the time of Ms. Minton's burial, which took place on March 9, 1999. Later, believing that a medical malpractice claim may have existed against Ms. Minton's medical care providers, the plaintiffs had their mother's body exhumed for an autopsy on August 10, 2001. When the casket was exhumed, the plaintiffs observed visible cracks and separation in the casket. As the casket was removed, it began to break apart. The body remained in the casket, and none of the plaintiffs saw the body.

After the exhumation, the plaintiffs filed suit against Ott & Lee and Batesville in a Mississippi court. The plaintiffs claimed that given the casket's cracked, separated, and partially dismantled condition, as revealed during the exhumation, the defendants had breached the implied warranties of merchantability and fitness for particular purpose. Ott & Lee and Batesville each moved for summary judgment. The plaintiffs presented affidavits from expert witnesses whose specialties were wood rot and adhesives, as opposed to caskets per se. These experts opined that the casket appeared as it did during the exhumation because of a probable failure of the adhesives used when it was manufactured. There was no evidence that Ms. Minton's body had not been properly preserved or that there was any damage to the body because of the cracks and separation in the casket. After the Mississippi circuit court granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment, the plaintiffs appealed to the Supreme Court of Mississippi.

Easley, Justice

Miss. Code Ann. 75-2-315 establishes the foundation for the concept of an implied warranty for fitness for a particular purpose. The statute provides in pertinent part [that] "where the seller at the time of contracting has reason to know any particular purpose for which the goods are required and that the buyer is relying on the seller's skill or judgment to select or furnish suitable goods, there is an implied warranty that the goods shall be fit for such purpose." The warranty of fitness for a particular purpose does not arise unless there is reliance on the seller by the buyer, and the seller selects goods which are unfit for the particular purpose.

Page 589

During discovery, depositions were taken from the plaintiffs. These depositions, which were provided to the trial court [in connection with] the motion for summary judgment, demonstrate that the plaintiffs purchased the wooden casket for its aesthetic value. [One plaintiff] testified:

We spotted the cherry wood casket. [An Ott & Lee employee] walked us over there to it and we all decided, standing thereus fourthat it looked like our mother. That'sI meanshe had everything in her house was cherry wood. I mean, it just looked like her. We asked ... about the casket. I mean, I'm not stupid. I know a casket won't seala wood casket.

[Another plaintiff] testified: "We were looking at the different caskets, and when we saw the wood casket, we knew that we wanted this one for Mother because it looked just like hera wood cherry casket. And we were just all [in] agreement with it." [A third plaintiff] testified that the reason he chose this casket was because his mother "just liked cherry wood furniture." He further stated [that] "[i]t just suited her."

In [its] conclusions of law, the trial court stated: "The court is convinced from the deposition testimony that the plaintiffs were well aware of the characteristic differences between a wooden casket as compared to a metal one, but that the former was selected because of their mother's love of cherry wood." The trial court found that "the fitness-purpose aspect was served during the time the decedent's body was placed in the casket and viewed by family members, loved ones, and friends at the funeral home."

Here, the evidence did not justify the submission of this case to a jury on the [implied] warranty of fitness for a particular purpose [claim]. Nothing in the record provides that the plaintiffs identified any particular purpose to the defendants when the casket was selected. Furthermore, assuming arguendo that the plaintiffs sought to preserve their mother's remains for some unspecified, indefinite period of time in the wooden casket, the record is completely devoid of any proof that the body had been damaged in any way by the alleged problems with the casket. As such, the burial had preserved the remains until the plaintiffs had their mother's remains unearthed and the autopsy performed. [T]he trial court did not err in granting summary judgment [in favor of the defendants on this implied warranty claim].

Miss. Code Ann. 75-2-314 establishes the statutory foundation for the concept of an implied warranty of merchantability. [The statute] provides in pertinent part: "[A] warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind." [The statute also states that in order for goods to be merchantable, they must be] "fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used."

The plaintiffs argue that, as reasonable consumers, they expected the casket to preserve the remains for an indefinite period of time. The defendants contend that even if the plaintiffs' theory that the ordinary purpose of the casket was to preserve the remains for an indefinite or some unknown period of time is accepted as true, there is no evidence in the record which indicates the remains were not in fact properly preserved for an indefinite or unknown period of time. When the remains were exhumed by the plaintiffs approximately two and one-half years after burial, the record reflects the remains were preserved. The plaintiffs present no claim that the remains had been damaged in any way by the cracks and separations. As such, the defendants assert the plaintiffs' alleged ordinary purpose of the casket was satisfied.

InCraigmiles v. Giles,110 F. Supp. 2d 658, 662 (E.D. Tenn. 2000), the district court stated:

A casket is nothing more than a container for human remains. Caskets are normally constructed of metal or wood, but can be made of other materials. Some have "protective seals," but those seals do not prevent air and bacteria from exiting. All caskets leak sooner or later, and all caskets, like their contents, eventually decompose.

Likewise, Batesville contends that the ordinary purpose of a wooden casket is to house the remains of the departed until interment. Batesville argues that the ordinary purpose includes uses which the manufacturer intended and those which are reasonably foreseeable. Accordingly, Batesville asserts that it would not be reasonably foreseeable that any customer would expect a wooden casket to preserve the remains for an indefinite period of time, as claimed by the plaintiffs.

[T]he record does not indicate that the plaintiffs ever stated a specified period of time that they, as reasonable customers, would have reasonably expected the wooden casket to last. The plaintiffs contend that they reasonably expected the casket to protect the remains for an indefinite period of time.Indefiniteis defined as "without fixed boundaries or distinguishing characteristics; not definite, determinate, or precise."Black's Law Dictionary393 (5th ed. 1983). [Under the circumstances, the] trial court [appropriately] found that the ordinary purpose for which the casket was designed ceased once the pallbearers bore the casket from the hearse to the grave site for burial. [In any event,] [a]s previously stated, the record also fails to demonstrate that the remains were damaged in any way from the alleged cracks and separation when the casket and body were exhumed.

Accordingly, [we reject] the plaintiffs' assignment of error [concerning the lower court's grant of summary judgment in favor of the defendants on the breach of implied warranty of merchantability claim].

Summary judgment in favor of defendants affirmed.