# Kazatsky v. King David Memorial Park, Inc.

> Supreme Court of Pennsylvania · June 15, 1987 · 515 Pa. 183

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704807

## Case

- **Full name:** Harvey and Marsha KAZATSKY, H/w, Appellants, v. KING DAVID MEMORIAL PARK, INC., Appellee
- **Court:** Supreme Court of Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** June 15, 1987
- **Citations:** 515 Pa. 183; 527 A.2d 988; 1987 Pa. LEXIS 734
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Hutchinson
- **Judges:** Nix, Larsen, Flaherty, McDermott, Hutchinson, Zappala, Papadakos
- **Cited by:** 302 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704807

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- reasoning that, given the advanced state of medical science, it is “unwise and unnecessary to permit recovery to be predicated on an inference based on the defendant's ‘outrageousness’ without expert medical confirmation that the plaintiff actually suffered the claimed distress.”
- stating that “it is unwise and unnecessary to permit recovery to be predicated on an inference based on the defendant’s ‘outra-geousness’ without expert medical confirma tion that the plaintiff actually suffered the claimed distress”
- concluding absence of expert medical testimony that plaintiff suffers from emotional distress precludes plaintiff from recovering on intentional infliction of emotional distress theory
- noting that “[t]he principle adopted in [Papieves] was derived from Restatement (First) of Torts § 868 (1939), which provides for liability to a decedent’s family member for the wanton mistreatment or intentional withholding of that decedent’s corpse.”
- holding that the plaintiffs recovery was barred by their failure to present competent medical evidence of their alleged emotional distress

## Opinion text

CONCURRING OPINION
HUTCHINSON, Justice,
concurring.
I concur in the result. I do not believe the new intentional tort proposed by Section 46 of Restatement of Torts 2d, *201 with its undefined parameters, has any place in either Pennsylvania precedent or policy.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9704807. Public record. Not legal advice.