Crocker v. Pleasant
Kalei Webb
MTS 120 Mortuary Law
Carl Sandburg College
The case Crocker v. Pleasant is an example of the negligent to use reasonable means to contact the next of kin of Jay Crocker and therefore violating the Crocker’s right to due process. This paper of awesomeness will discuss the allegations of the Crocker family against a police officer named Pleasant for his failure to use reasonable efforts to notify the next of kin for the recently deceased Jay Crocker. As well as, a possible violation of the Crocker family’s right to due process and some possibility of dealing with mental anguish that they suffered because of the city’s lack of training, discipline, and watching over the conduct of the police officers …show more content…
Pleasant the officer pleasant violated the Crocker family’s right of disposition or the Crocker’s fourth amendment right within the constitution which is the right to due process as stated by the case. The Crocker’s family have the right to due process because they are the next of kin to their twenty-three-year-old son Jay Crocker. They hold the right to due process due to the quasi-property theory which are the rights that are often identified with a dead human body treating it as if it were a property that has the sole purpose of being disposed of in a timely and acceptable form of disposition. The quasi-property theory is the accepted theory in the United States of America that the states what the legal status of a dead human body is. A dead human body is legally defined, by the textbook titled “Mortuary Law’” by Gilligan-Stuave, as a body that has not yet disintegrated. (Gilligan, 2003) With this in mind, a skeleton or cremated remains aren’t considered to constitute a “dead human body” in the eyes of the law. (Gilligan, 2003) Which the decedent Jay Crocker at the time of this his disposition did fit the definition of a dead human body within the eyes of the law. As such, it is entirely feasible believe that the officer Pleasant and the city were, in fact, violating the Crocker’s rights of disposition for their twenty-three-year-old son Jay …show more content…
Pleasant, Pleasant’s unlawful and negligent act had caused the Crocker family a great mental anguish as well as having to deal with the costs that were related to the burial of their twenty-three-year-old son, Jay Crocker. The court had determined that in order for the Crocker’s to receive mental anguish there would have had to have been some form of either some form of physical injury, mutilation, or a willful misconduct which is required to support any cause of action for mental anguish which is based on the negligent handling of a dead human
Kalei Webb
MTS 120 Mortuary Law
Carl Sandburg College
The case Crocker v. Pleasant is an example of the negligent to use reasonable means to contact the next of kin of Jay Crocker and therefore violating the Crocker’s right to due process. This paper of awesomeness will discuss the allegations of the Crocker family against a police officer named Pleasant for his failure to use reasonable efforts to notify the next of kin for the recently deceased Jay Crocker. As well as, a possible violation of the Crocker family’s right to due process and some possibility of dealing with mental anguish that they suffered because of the city’s lack of training, discipline, and watching over the conduct of the police officers …show more content…
Pleasant the officer pleasant violated the Crocker family’s right of disposition or the Crocker’s fourth amendment right within the constitution which is the right to due process as stated by the case. The Crocker’s family have the right to due process because they are the next of kin to their twenty-three-year-old son Jay Crocker. They hold the right to due process due to the quasi-property theory which are the rights that are often identified with a dead human body treating it as if it were a property that has the sole purpose of being disposed of in a timely and acceptable form of disposition. The quasi-property theory is the accepted theory in the United States of America that the states what the legal status of a dead human body is. A dead human body is legally defined, by the textbook titled “Mortuary Law’” by Gilligan-Stuave, as a body that has not yet disintegrated. (Gilligan, 2003) With this in mind, a skeleton or cremated remains aren’t considered to constitute a “dead human body” in the eyes of the law. (Gilligan, 2003) Which the decedent Jay Crocker at the time of this his disposition did fit the definition of a dead human body within the eyes of the law. As such, it is entirely feasible believe that the officer Pleasant and the city were, in fact, violating the Crocker’s rights of disposition for their twenty-three-year-old son Jay …show more content…
Pleasant, Pleasant’s unlawful and negligent act had caused the Crocker family a great mental anguish as well as having to deal with the costs that were related to the burial of their twenty-three-year-old son, Jay Crocker. The court had determined that in order for the Crocker’s to receive mental anguish there would have had to have been some form of either some form of physical injury, mutilation, or a willful misconduct which is required to support any cause of action for mental anguish which is based on the negligent handling of a dead human