Lane v. Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc.
588 N.W.2d 715 (1998), 231 Mich. App. 689 (1998)
Rule of Law:
Damages for emotional distress are recoverable for the breach of a personal contract, such as a child care agreement, because such contracts involve matters of mental concern and solicitude, and a breach resulting in mental anguish is foreseeable to the parties.
Facts:
- Plaintiff enrolled her eighteen-month-old daughter in defendant's day care facility.
- On December 9, 1992, plaintiff dropped her daughter off and provided prescribed medication with an authorization form for defendant's employees to administer.
- Around 5:00 P.M., an employee placed the sleeping child in a crib.
- At approximately 6:00 P.M., defendant’s employees locked the facility and left for the day, unaware that the child was still inside.
- Plaintiff arrived to find the facility locked and unlit, with her daughter inside.
- Plaintiff called 911, and a police officer broke a window to retrieve the child, who was upset but not physically harmed.
- Plaintiff later observed that the medication authorization form had not been initialed.
- Plaintiff alleged she suffered emotional distress from the incident.
Procedural Posture:
- Plaintiff filed a complaint against defendant in the Ingham Circuit Court (trial court) alleging breach of contract, negligence, and other claims.
- Defendant filed a motion for summary disposition to have the claims dismissed.
- The trial court granted summary disposition in favor of the defendant, dismissing plaintiff's claims.
- Plaintiff (now appellant) appealed the trial court's order to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a contract for child care services constitute a personal contract for which a party may recover damages for emotional distress resulting from a breach, even without an accompanying physical injury?
Opinions:
Majority - Per Curiam
Yes. A contract for child care services is a personal contract, not a commercial one, for which damages for emotional distress may be recovered without a showing of physical injury. The general rule from Kewin v Massachusetts Mut Life Ins Co is that emotional distress damages are not recoverable for breach of a commercial contract. However, an exception exists for contracts of a personal nature, which are concerned not with commerce or profit, but with "life and death," "elements of personality," and "matters of mental concern and solicitude," as established in Stewart v Rudner. A contract to care for one's child clearly falls into this personal category. Therefore, it was foreseeable to the parties at the time of contracting that a breach would result in mental distress damages to the plaintiff, and such damages are recoverable even if they do not result in a physical injury.
Analysis:
This decision solidifies the application of the 'personal contract' exception for recovering emotional distress damages in Michigan. By classifying a child care agreement as a personal contract, the court expands the doctrine beyond more traditional examples like marriage promises or burial contracts. This case establishes a significant precedent for service contracts involving the care of vulnerable individuals, signaling that providers can be held liable for foreseeable emotional harm caused by their breach, not just physical or purely economic harm. Future cases involving contracts for the care of the elderly, disabled, or other dependents will likely rely on this reasoning to justify claims for non-economic damages.
Gunnerbot
AI-powered case assistant
Loaded: Lane v. Kindercare Learning Centers, Inc. (1998)
Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"