## Facts

- Katherine Lane enrolled her 18-month-old daughter in Kindercare’s day-care facility.
- On December 9, 1992, Lane dropped off her daughter around lunchtime and signed an authorization permitting Kindercare employees to administer prescribed medication that day.
- Shortly after 5:00 p.m., an employee placed the sleeping child in a crib in the infant room.
- Around 6:00 p.m., employees locked the facility and left, apparently unaware the child remained inside.
- When Lane arrived to pick up her daughter, the building was locked and dark; she called 911.
- Police saw the child asleep through a window; an officer broke a window and removed the child.
- The child was upset but not physically injured.
- Lane observed the medication authorization form had not been initialed to show the medication was given and alleged she suffered serious emotional distress.
- Lane sued for breach of contract, statutory and regulatory violations, negligence and gross negligence, and sought exemplary damages.

## Issues

1. Whether emotional-distress damages are recoverable for breach of a day-care contract involving care of a young child, even absent physical injury.
2. Whether Michigan’s Child Care Organizations Act creates an implied private cause of action for parents against a child-care provider for statutory or regulatory violations.
3. Whether the trial court properly denied leave to amend the complaint.

## Decision

- The court affirmed in part and reversed in part the summary disposition granted under MCR 2.116(C)(8).
- It reversed dismissal of the breach of contract claim, holding emotional-distress damages may be recovered for breach of a personal contract concerning matters of mental concern and solicitude.
- It affirmed dismissal of claims premised on the Child Care Organizations Act, holding the statute provides no private cause of action.
- It affirmed denial of leave to amend because the proposed amendments would have been futile, even though the trial court’s stated reason for denial was improper.
- The case was remanded for further proceedings on the breach of contract claim.

## Legal Principles

- A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of the pleadings; well-pleaded factual allegations are accepted as true.
- Michigan generally does not allow emotional-distress damages for breach of a commercial contract, but such damages may be recoverable for breach of a personal contract concerned with mental concern and solicitude.
- A child-care agreement for the safety and care of a very young child may be treated as a personal contract, making emotional-distress damages reasonably within the parties’ contemplation at contracting.
- In the personal-contract setting, emotional-distress damages for breach do not require proof of physical injury.
- The Child Care Organizations Act’s administrative and criminal enforcement scheme indicates legislative intent not to create an implied private cause of action for parents.
- Leave to amend may be denied when amendment would be futile because the amended pleading would still fail to state a legally cognizable claim.

## Conclusion

The court held that a parent may pursue emotional-distress damages for breach of a day-care contract characterized as personal in nature, but may not sue under the Child Care Organizations Act absent an express private remedy; the breach of contract claim was reinstated and remanded, while statutory and amendment issues were resolved for the provider.


Lane v. Kindercare Learning Ctrs., Inc., 231 Mich. App. 689, 588 N.W.2d 715 (1998)