Skip to main content


Rouse v. Rosenberg, 2023 Pa. Super. LEXIS 202 (May 15, 2023) (Pellegrini, J.). This case involves a cause of action for emotional distress resulting from interference with a dead body. Under § 868 of the First Restatement of Torts, as adopted by our Supreme Court in Papieves v. Lawrence, 437 Pa. 373, 263 A.2d 118, 120 (Pa. 1970), “one who wantonly mistreats or, acting without privilege, intentionally withholds the body of a decedent is liable in tort to the member of the decedent’s family who is entitled to the disposition of the body.” The issue here is whether a person “intentionally withholds” a missing murder victim’s body where they allegedly acted as accessories after the fact but are not alleged to have helped hide the body or even know its location. The plaintiff, T. Lee Rouse (Rouse), sued Kimberly and Howard Rosenberg (the Rosenbergs), and Martha Laux (Laux) (collectively, Defendants). The Rosenbergs’ son murdered Rouse’s son and hid his body in a park where it remained undiscovered for over two months. During that time, the Rosenbergs came into possession of the handgun that their son used to commit the murder. Rather than take it to the police, the Rosenbergs took it to their marriage counselor, Laux. She then took the handgun to the police but lied about how she found it. Based on all this, Rouse alleged that Defendants delayed the proper disposition of her son’s body. Defendants countered that they could not be held liable for interference with a dead body because there was no allegation that they ever touched or controlled her son’s body, let alone even knew its location. Agreeing with Defendants, the Court of Common Pleas of Allegheny County (trial court) dismissed Rouse’s action on preliminary objections. On appeal, Rouse argues that she pleaded sufficient facts to withstand demurrer because (1) this case is analogous to Papieves, and (2) she was not required to show that Defendants ever physically touched or hid her son’s body. After review, we affirm.