PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 1 OF 9

CAUSE NO. _________________

BRUCE LAWSON IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF
Plaintiff

V. HARRIS COUNTY, TEXAS

MIDTOWN MORTUARY CORPORATION
D/B/A MABRIE MEMORIAL MORTUARY
Defendant ______ JUDICIAL DISTRICT

PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION

TO THE HONORABLE J UDGE OF SAID COURT:
COMES NOW Plaintiff, Bruce Lawson, complaining of Midtown Mortuary Corporation
d/b/a Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, and would respectfully show as follows:
I
DISCOVERY CONTROL PLAN

Based upon this Petition, this case should be controlled by discovery control plan Level 2
pursuant to the Texas Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 190.3.
II
PARTIES
Plaintiff, Bruce Lawson is a resident of Harris County, Texas.
Defendant, Midtown Mortuary Corporation d/b/a Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, is a Texas
Corporation that owns, operates and/or controls the Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, a funeral home
located in Houston, Harris County, Texas. Service of process may be effected upon Defendant
by serving its registered agent: Herman J ames Mabrie III, 815 Walker, Suite 1035, Houston,
Texas 77002. Service on Defendant as described above can be effected by personal delivery.






10/13/2014 11:20:33 PM
Chris Daniel - District Clerk Harris County
Envelope No. 2817012
By: Cassandra Durisseau
Filed: 10/13/2014 11:20:33 PM
U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
2014-59652 / Court: 269
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 2 OF 9

III
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the controversy because the claims
asserted in this Petition arose, in whole or in part, in Harris County, Texas and the amount in
controversy exceeds the minimal jurisdictional limits of the court.
This Court has personal jurisdiction over the Defendant because the acts and omissions
complained of herein occurred in Texas and Defendant does business in the State of Texas.
Venue is properly laid in the Harris County, Texas because Defendant resides in or has a
principle office located in Harris County, Texas and all or a substantial part of Plaintiff's cause of
action arose in Harris County, Texas. See TEX. CIV. PRAC. & REM. CODE 15.002(a).
IV
INTRODUCTION

This is a suit against a funeral home, Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, for damages sustained
by the Plaintiff, Bruce Lawson, incident to the funeral of his mother. The Plaintiff claims
damages based on the failure of the defendant funeral home to properly perform its contractual
obligation to handle and bury the body of his deceased mother in a good and workmanlike
manner, and the negligence and gross negligence of the defendant funeral home in failing to
prepare, handle, monitor and present his mothers dead body for funeral services and burial.
V
FACTS

Plaintiff's mother, Edna L. Lawson, passed away on J uly 19, 2014. Plaintiffs mother was
81 years old when she died. Mabrie Memorial Mortuary, the defendant funeral home, was
contracted by the family to take the body and be in charge of those matters which attend funeral
services, which include the preparation of the body for viewing, the handling of the body during
U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 3 OF 9

the funeral services, the transportation of the body to the burial site, and then the actual burial of
the body in the cemetery plot.
The body of Plaintiffs deceased mother remained in the funeral home until J uly 29th,
the day of the funeral. During the funeral services the Plaintiff noticed that the woman in the
casket did not look like his mother and brought his concern to the attention of Ms. Cynthia J ones,
the funeral director. The funeral director then affirmatively told Plaintiff, "[W]e don't make those
kind of mistakes."
Although Plaintiff was not satisfied with the funeral directors response, due to the
sensitive nature of the occasion and the fact that many of his relatives traveled from out of town
to attend his mothers funeral, he felt compelled to rely on the statement of the funeral director
and allow the funeral services to continue. After the funeral services, the defendant funeral home
transported the body to the Veteran Memorial Cemetery where his mothers body was to be
buried alongside his deceased father, who was a World War II Veteran.
On J uly 31, 2014, two days later, the defendant funeral home contacted Plaintiff and
informed him that a mistake had been made whereby the wrong body was presented in the casket
at his mothers funeral and they buried someone else in his mother's cemetery plot. The
defendant funeral home then informed Plaintiff that his mother's deceased body was still in the
back of the funeral home. After receiving this emotionally devastating information Plaintiff
immediately became ill, fell to his knees and fainted.
The defendant funeral home then informed Plaintiff that he had to return to the funeral
home to identify his mother's deceased body and make arrangements for a second funeral and
burial for his deceased mother. The negligent conduct of the defendant funeral home caused
Plaintiff to endure the aggravating emotional pain of repeating his deceased mothers entire
U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 4 OF 9

funeral service and go through the devastating experience of burying his deceased mother all
over again. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer severe emotional
anguish caused by the defendant funeral homes mishandling of his mothers deceased body.
VI
STATEMENT OF CLAIMS
A. BREACH OF CONTRACT
Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. In addition to
the allegations above, the following errors and/or omissions by Defendant constitutes breach of
contract:
Plaintiff entered into a valid contract with defendant funeral home to handle the funeral
services and burial of his deceased mother. Plaintiff fulfilled his obligation by making his
mothers deceased body available and defendant funeral home retrieved the body. The defendant
funeral home breached its duty to perform its services in a good and workmanlike manner by
mishandling his mother's body and failing to prepare, handle, monitor and present the body of
Plaintiffs deceased mother for funeral services and burial. As a result, Plaintiff has suffered and
will continue to suffer severe emotional anguish caused by the defendant funeral homes
mishandling of his mothers deceased body.
B. NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. The
defendant funeral home had a duty to perform its services in a good and workmanlike manner.
In addition to the allegations above, the following errors and/or omissions by Defendant
constitutes negligence:
1. Failure to timely prepare the deceased body for funeral services.

2. Failure to inform the family the wrong body was placed in casket.
U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 5 OF 9


3. Failure to properly monitor the deceased body.

4. Failure to present the deceased body during the funeral services.

5. Failure to present the deceased body for burial.

6. Failure to handle the deceased body in a good and workmanlike manner.

7. Failure to provide necessary and proper procedures and measures for
handling the deceased body.

8. Failure to take prompt action to investigate Plaintiffs concerns regarding
the identity of the deceased body in his mothers casket.

9. Failure to provide competent personnel to handle the deceased body.

10. Failure to enforce reasonable guidelines to ensure the correct body was
presented at the funeral services.

11. Such other and further acts of negligence as may be supplemented as a
result of discovery performed in this suit.

Plaintiff would show that the incident made the basis of this suit, his injuries, and
damages arose from the negligent conduct of the Defendant herein. These acts were performed
with an unreasonable risk of harm which gave rise to a cause of action for negligence, which was
a proximate cause of the occurrence in question and that resulted in Plaintiffs injuries and
damages.
C. GROSS NEGLIGENCE
Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. In addition to
the allegations above, the following acts of malfeasance constitutes gross negligence.
Defendants acts or omissions involved an extreme degree of risk to Plaintiff. Defendant had
actual, subjective awareness of the risk but proceeded anyway with a conscious indifference to
the rights, safety, or welfare of Plaintiff. Specifically, Defendant was grossly negligent because
its acts or omissions in failing to ensure the correct body was presented particularly after being
U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 6 OF 9

questioned by the Plaintiff, when viewed objectively from the standpoint of a reasonable prudent
funeral home, involved an extreme degree of risk that the entire funeral proceeding and burial
would have to be repeated, considering the probability and magnitude of the potential harm to
Plaintiff. Moreover, the Defendant, who advertise to be seasoned in handling funerals, had
actual, subjective awareness of the risk, but nevertheless proceeded with conscious indifference
to the emotional well-being of Plaintiff under the circumstances.The factor which lifts ordinary
negligence into gross negligence is the mental attitude of the defendant. . . . Rhodes v. Batilla,
848 S.W.2d 833, 844 (Tex. App.Houston [14th Dist.] 1993, writ denied).
D. RESPONDENT SUPERIOR AND/OR VICARIOUS LIABILITY
Plaintiff incorporates the facts set forth above as if recited herein verbatim. At all times
material hereto, all of the agents, servants, and/or employees for Defendant, who were connected
with the occurrence made the subject of this suit, were acting within the course and scope of their
employment or official duties and in furtherance of the duties of their office or employment or in
a managerial capacity. Therefore, Defendant is further liable for the negligent acts and
omissions of its employees and agents under the doctrines of respondent superior and/or
vicarious liability.
E. EXEMPLARY DAMAGES
The conduct of Defendant constitutes gross negligence, which entitles Plaintiff to
exemplary damages under Texas Constitution article 16, section 26. The Defendants conduct
exceeds mere thoughtlessness or negligence. It indicates a conscious indifference and needless
disregard for the rights of the Plaintiff and his grieving family members, as well as malice.
Defendant had actual awareness of the unreasonable risk that the course of action could result in
catastrophic harm to the Plaintiff and his grieving family members. Defendant consciously
U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 7 OF 9

disregarded that risk. Defendant should therefore be required to pay punitive damages to
Plaintiff in an amount sufficient to discourage such conduct in this community in the future. As
described herein, Plaintiffs injuries resulted from Defendants gross negligence and/or malice,
which entitle Plaintiff to exemplary damages.

VII
DAMAGES
As a direct and proximate result of the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit, and
Defendants acts as described herein, Plaintiff has suffered damages, and has been forced to
endure anxiety, pain, and injury and has incurred the following damages:
a. Actual damages;
b. Pecuniary losses;
c. Expenses for psychological treatment in the past and future;
d. Funeral expenses;
e. Medical expenses in the past and future;
f. Pain and suffering;
g. Mental anguish in the past and future;
h. Exemplary damages;
i. Court costs;
j. Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;
k. Direct and consequential damages; and
l. Other actual damages as described herein
By reason of the above, Plaintiff has suffered losses and damages in a sum within the
jurisdictional limits of the Court and for which this lawsuit is brought.
U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 8 OF 9

VIII
CONDITIONS PRECEDENT

All conditions precedents to the bringing of this action have been satisfied, waived or
have otherwise occurred.
IX
JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff desires to have a jury decide this case and makes this formal request pursuant to
Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 216.
X
REQUEST FOR DISCLOSURE
Under Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 194, Plaintiff requests that Defendant disclose,
within 30 days of the service of this request, the information or material described in Rule 194.2
if they have not already.
XI
PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays that after trial herein, that judgment be entered against
Defendant as prayed for, that costs of court be taxed against Defendant, that Plaintiff have
prejudgment as well as post-judgment interest, and for such other and further relief, at law and in
equity to which Plaintiff may show himself to be justly entitled, to which the Court believes
Plaintiff to be deserving, and for which Plaintiff will ever pray.
Respectfully submitted,
/ s / Shannon B. Baldwin
SHANNON B. BALDWIN
SHANNON B.BALDWIN & ASSOCIATES, PLLC
Texas State Bar No. 24034314
attorneysbaldwin@gmail.com



U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k
PLAINTIFFS ORIGINAL PETITION PAGE 9 OF 9

1776 Yorktown, Suite 350
Houston, Texas 77056
t.713.664.6800
f.281.404.9021

OF COUNSEL:
MELVIN HOUSTON
Melvin Houston & Associates, P.C.
Texas State Bar No. 00793987
mhouston@gotellmel.com
1776 Yorktown, Suite 350
Houston, Texas 77056
t.713.212.0600
f.713.212.0290


U
n
o
f
f
i
c
i
a
l

C
o
p
y

O
f
f
i
c
e

o
f

C
h
r
i
s

D
a
n
i
e
l

D
i
s
t
r
i
c
t

C
l
e
r
k