PITTSBURGH – A North Braddock cemetery holds that it conducted a proper burial for a plaintiff’s deceased wife, and did not fail to alleviate the plaintiff’s subsequent concerns and/or requests for correction in that regard.
Charles Davis II first filed suit in the Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas on March 17 versus Braddock Cemetery Company, of North Braddock.
“On March 31, 2020, the defendant deeded to the plaintiff two burial lots known as graves C and D, Section 5, in the Veteran’s Area. The plaintiff made this purchase for a grave for himself and his wife, Myra F. Davis, who died on March 26, 2020 following a long and difficult illness from cancer and other disheartening medical difficulties. The defendant knew or should have known that it is established tradition that the wife’s burial should be to the husband’s left,” the suit said.
“In addition, plaintiff's expectation that this would be done was made known to the defendant and made the basis of the parties’ bargain. Alternatively, this arrangement of wife being buried to husband’s left is simply a practice followed throughout the cemetery industry. Accordingly, the said deceased spouse, Myra, was buried by defendant in grave D in anticipation that upon his death, plaintiff would be buried to her right in grave C, and thus, Myra would be correctly buried to plaintiff’s left.”
The suit continues that after the burial, however, it appeared that the space to Myra’s right was already occupied by another “Mrs. Smith.”
“This conflict of spacing could only be noticed by plaintiff after Myra’s burial. Plaintiff brought his concerns to the notice of defendant, and was essentially repeatedly ignored. Plaintiff then had the undersigned attorney send defendant a letter dated Sept. 21, 2020 to explore a mutual and amicable solution to this problem. Again, defendant essentially ignored this request,” the suit stated.
“Plaintiff then contacted an individual who employed a very simple and inexpensive way to ascertain if there was someone actually buried in grave C, by hammering a long spike into the ground. It was then confirmed that plaintiff’s grave C is indeed occupied by another burial vault, presumably the said Mrs. Smith. Again, this was brought to the defendant’s attention by the undersigned [in a second letter dated June 16, 2022] in an attempt to secure an amicable solution, and again this request was ignored. Again, this request has been ignored.”
UPDATE
On April 25, the defendant filed an answer and new matter, entirely contradicting the plaintiff’s version of events.
“On March 31, 2020, the defendant deeded to the plaintiff two burial plots, known as Graves C and D, Section 5, in the Veteran’s area of the defendant’s cemetery. On March 26, 2020, the plaintiff specifically advised the defendant that his wife, Myra F. Davis, should be buried to the left of the plaintiff’s grave. The standard burial practice for cemeteries is for a wife to be buried to the right of her husband’s grave (because the wife is always right). The right of the grave is determined when one looks at a grave from where the decedent’s feet are located. Plaintiff was advised by the defendant of this specific burial tradition – a wife is buried to the right of a husband’s grave. Despite being advised of this specific tradition, the plaintiff advised that he wanted his wife buried to the left of plaintiff’s grave because that is how the plaintiff and defendant slept in their marital bed. Subsequent to Myra F. Davis’s death, the plaintiff was buried in a grave to the left of the plaintiff’s grave. In the parlance of grave diggers, Myra F. Davis was buried via a ‘reverse burial’ for she was buried in a grave to her husband’s left. Plaintiff watched the defendant’s personnel place Myra F. Davis’s coffin in her grave. A grave to the left of the plaintiff’s grave,” according to the new matter.
“At the time Myra F. Davis was placed in her grave, plaintiff made no objection to her burial location nor voiced any concern as to her location. Plaintiff subsequently advised the defendant that because he believed somebody was buried in his burial plot, he could not be buried to the right of Myra F. Davis’s burial plot. No one is buried in the plaintiff’s burial plot which is to the right to Myra F. Davis’s grave. In the cemetery business, it is not an uncommon occurrence for a headstone and/or vault to shift over the passage of time and due to the forces of nature. So, it is not an uncommon occurrence to realign a headstone or vault that has shifted on to or in to an adjacent grave so that it is no longer on or in the adjacent grace. Marceline Smith is buried in the second grave to the immediate left of Myra F. Davis’s grave. Even if Marceline Smith’s headstone or burial vault shifted on to or in to the adjacent grave, Marceline’s headstone and vault may be easily removed from the adjacent grave. Even though defendant does not believe that any vault has shifted on to or into the plaintiff’s grave, which is to the right of Myra F. Smith’s grave, defendant will not learn this until it comes time to bury plaintiff.”
According to the defendant, even if a vault has shifted onto or into the plaintiff’s grave, which is to the right of Myra F. Smith’s grave, it will correct this intrusion – and in an effort to assuage the plaintiff’s “mistaken” belief that there was insufficient space to bury him next to his late wife’s right, the defendant advised the plaintiff that he could be buried in the vacant grave to the left of Myra F. Davis. However, in that arrangement, Myra F. Smith would be buried to the right of the plaintiff — the traditional burial positions of a husband and wife.
“Defendant then stated that this was unsatisfactory because there was insufficient space between Myra F. Davis’s burial plot and Marceline Smith’s grave. There is sufficient space between Myra F. Davis’s grave and Marceline Smith’s in which plaintiff may be buried,” the new matter continued.
For a count of improper burial, the plaintiff is seeking injunctive relief to correct the ownership and burial of the plaintiff and his spouse as originally agreed, and as traditionally proper, punitive damages due to defendant’s horrid and outrageous failure to even explore a solution of the problem it created by its mistake, attorney’s fees, interest, costs and such other relief as the court may deem just.
The plaintiff is represented by Gary Kalmeyer of Kalmeyer & Kalmeyer, in Pittsburgh.
The defendant is represented by Brian P. Cavanaugh of Stewart Sorice Farrell Finoli & Cavanaugh, in Greensburg.
Allegheny County Court of Common Pleas case GD-23-003682
From the Pennsylvania Record: Reach Courts Reporter Nicholas Malfitano at nick.malfitano@therecordinc.com