Opinion ID: 848711
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: the majority's interpretation is overly expansive

Text: The majority notes [6] that this Court and the Court of Appeals have developed tests for deciding whether an action lies in breach of contract rather than in tort. The majority also observes [7] that this Court and the Court of Appeals have defined a tort action stemming from misfeasance in terms of whether the plaintiff alleges violation of a legal duty separate and distinct from the contractual obligation. Rinaldo's Constr. Corp. v. Michigan Bell Tel. Co., 454 Mich. 65, 84, 559 N.W.2d 647 (1997). However, after reviewing the cases cited by the majority, I conclude that it is taking a more expansive view of that definition than has been taken previously. The existence of a duty separate and distinct from the contractual obligation, [8] has been identified historically as a dividing line between tort and contract obligations. Thus far, however, this rule has been applied only to disputes involving the parties to a contract. In those cases, the one harmed by a breach of the contract could not recover both in contract and in tort. All the cases that the majority cites [9] involve a duty allegedly separate from a contract. In Hart, [10] the Court determined whether the plaintiff could maintain an action in tort against the defendant for failing to adequately care for the plaintiff's orchard. The parties had an oral contract. Sherman [11] involved a plaintiff who filed a complaint against a boat manufacturer arising from a contract to sell a boat. See also Rinaldo's, 454 Mich. at 79-80, 559 N.W.2d 647 Ferrett v. Gen. Motors Corp., 438 Mich. 235, 475 N.W.2d 243 (1991), Chase v. Clinton Co., 241 Mich. 478, 479-480, 217 N.W. 565 (1928), and Churchill v. Howe, 186 Mich. 107, 152 N.W. 989 (1915). In each of these cases, the plaintiff and the defendant were parties to a contract. It was necessary for each court to determine whether a breach of the contract could give rise to a separate tort duty. It was necessary to identify what theory of recovery applied as well as what damages were recoverable. However, this case is different. The contract involved is not between Creative Maintenance and Fultz. As a consequence, I am not convinced that the law the majority invokes should be extended to this situation. The use of a separate and distinct test to determine whether a duty in tort arises independently of the contract may have appeal. However, it fails where the contract itself outlines a specific duty to protect third persons.