Featured Chrome Extensions:

Casey IRACs are produced by an AI that analyzes the opinion’s content to construct its analysis. While we strive for accuracy, the output may not be flawless. For a complete and precise understanding, please refer to the linked opinions above.

Keywords

tortplaintifftrialmotionadoptionduty of care
plaintiffdefendanttrialadoption

Related Cases

Montgomery Ward & Co., Inc. v. Anderson, 334 Ark. 561, 976 S.W.2d 382
View Case »
Collins v. Plant Insulation Co., 185 Cal.App.4th 260, 110 Cal.Rptr.3d 241, 75 Cal. Comp. Cases 861, 10 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6933, 2010 Daily Journal D.A.R. 8258
View Case »
McDougall v. Lamm, 211 N.J. 203, 48 A.3d 312
View Case »
Sivit v. Village Green of Beachwood, L.P., 143 Ohio St.3d 168, 35 N.E.3d 508, 2015-Ohio-1193
View Case »
Culberson v. Doan, 125 F.Supp.2d 252
View Case »
Justia Law Link
LexisNexis Link
Westlaw Link
CourtListener Link
Oyez Link

Mallette v. Children’s Friend and Service, 661 A.2d 67

Facts

In 1983, the Mallettes adopted Christopher Mallette through CFS. They alleged that CFS negligently misrepresented and omitted critical information about Christopher's medical and family history, which they only learned years later. The Mallettes claimed that CFS had prior knowledge of significant health issues in Christopher's biological family but failed to disclose this information before the adoption, leading to emotional distress and financial burdens for the family.

This action arises out of the 1983 adoption of Christopher Mallette (Christopher) by the plaintiffs Thomas D. Mallette, Jr., and Deborah Mallette (the Mallettes). In 1981 the Mallettes sought to adopt a child through CFS. Shortly thereafter, in 1982, the Mallettes were informed by CFS that a child was available whom they might be interested in adopting. According to the Mallettes' amended complaint, at this time employees of CFS negligently misrepresented and omitted material information concerning Christopher's medical and family history.

Issue

Whether the tort of negligent misrepresentation can be recognized in the context of adoption, and whether the adoption agency owed a duty of care to the adoptive parents.

The sole issue for our review is whether the Mallettes have stated a cause of action under Rhode Island law.

Rule

To establish a prima facie case of negligent misrepresentation, a plaintiff must show: (1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) the representor's knowledge or lack of knowledge regarding the truth of the representation; (3) intent to induce reliance; and (4) injury resulting from justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation.

In order to establish a prima facie case of negligent misrepresentation, the plaintiff must establish the following elements: “(1) a misrepresentation of a material fact; (2) the representor must either know of the misrepresentation, must make the misrepresentation without knowledge as to its truth or falsity or must make the representation under circumstances in which he ought to have known of its falsity; (3) the representor must intend the representation to induce another to act on it; and (4) injury must result to the party acting in justifiable reliance on the misrepresentation.”

Analysis

The court found that CFS had a duty to provide accurate information once it began disclosing details about Christopher's background. The Mallettes' allegations indicated that CFS misrepresented critical information, which they relied upon when deciding to adopt Christopher. The court concluded that the Mallettes had sufficiently stated a claim for negligent misrepresentation, as they would not have adopted Christopher had they known the truth about his medical and genetic background.

When CFS began allegedly volunteering information concerning Christopher's and his biological mother's medical and genetic background, the agency assumed a duty to refrain from making negligent misrepresentations.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court denied CFS's petition for certiorari, affirming the trial court's order in part and remanding the case for further proceedings. The court recognized the tort of negligent misrepresentation in the adoption context, emphasizing the importance of accurate information for prospective adoptive parents.

Consequently the defendant's petition for certiorari is denied, and the writ heretofore issued is quashed. The order of the trial justice is affirmed to the extent noted above, and the case is remanded to the Superior Court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Who won?

The Mallettes prevailed in the case because the court recognized their claim for negligent misrepresentation against CFS, affirming that adoption agencies have a duty to provide accurate information when they choose to disclose it.

The Mallettes have sufficiently pled that CFS breached such a duty by allegedly misinforming the Mallettes of the true state of Christopher's and his family's medical and genetic background.

You must be