Court Opinion

ID: 9592845
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-22 00:17:24.525946+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:15:32.888315
License: Public Domain

J. T. Corden, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I join in affirming the trial court’s disposition of Counts i and hi. However, I respectfully dissent from the reversal of the order denying defendant’s motion for summary disposition of the negligent evaluation claim, Count n. Schipani v Ford Motor Co, 102 Mich App 606; 302 NW2d 307 (1981), recognizes a cause of action for the negligent performance of contractually required employee evaluations.
The trial court found that the employment contract between the parties imposed upon the employer the duty to perform periodic evaluations. Whether that duty was breached, and led to plaintiffs discharge, is a factual question. Schipani, supra, which derives its authority from the Michigan Supreme Court’s rulings in Hart v Ludwig, 347 Mich 559; 79 NW2d 895 (1956), and Clark v Dalman, 379 Mich 251; 150 NW2d 755 (1967), that *802the duty of care required to support a negligence action may arise from a contractual relationship, recognizes that a duty, once assumed, must be performed with reasonable care and a plaintiff is entitled to have the alleged breach of duty and its consequences analyzed, tested and resolved as any other allegation of fact. Schipani, supra, does, not however, require as a condition precedent that plaintiff must withstand summary disposition on a wrongful discharge claim before the negligent evaluation claim can be considered. Whether or not a contract governs the conduct of the parties, Hart, supra, states that the duty to perform any undertaking must be done with reasonable care. For these reasons, I believe the trial court properly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition as to Count ii.