|
4472 REVIEW GRANTED A university does not owe members of the family of a decedent whose body was donated to it for medical research a duty to track the remains or inform family members of how it was used; evidence that a Willed Body Program engaged in a pattern of mishandling donated bodies did not establish that a particular donated body had been mishandled; outrageous conduct does not support an action for intentional infliction of emotional distress unless it was directed at or committed in the presence of plaintiff; misrepresentations made to a person who agreed to donate his body for medical research do not support an action for fraud or negligent misrepresentation by the donor's wife, since she did not make any decision in reliance on them.CitationCONROY v REGENTS (Donated Body) 151 CA4 132 [See: Christensen v Superior Court 54 C3 868; City v Merrill Lynch 68 CA4 445, T/AT 1/99; Mirkin v Wasserman 5 C4 1082, T/AT 11/93]
|
|
