Daley v. LaCroix
384 Mich. 4, 179 N.W.2d 390 (1970)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
A plaintiff may recover damages for a definite and objective physical injury that is produced as a result of emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct, notwithstanding the absence of any physical impact upon the plaintiff at the time of the mental shock.
Facts:
- On July 16, 1963, a defendant was driving near the Daley family's farm in Macomb County.
- The defendant's vehicle left the highway, traveled through the air, and sheared off a utility pole.
- The crash caused high voltage lines to snap and strike the electrical lines leading into the plaintiffs' house.
- This contact resulted in a significant electrical explosion and considerable property damage to the Daleys' home.
- As a result of witnessing the explosion and its attendant circumstances, Estelle Daley claimed to have suffered traumatic neurosis and emotional disturbance.
- Similarly, Timothy Daley claimed to have suffered emotional disturbance and nervousness from the event.
Procedural Posture:
- The Daley family (plaintiffs) sued the defendant driver in Macomb County Circuit Court (trial court).
- At the close of the plaintiffs' case, the trial judge granted a directed verdict against Timothy Daley for lack of evidence of personal injury.
- The judge also granted a directed verdict against Estelle Daley, ruling she failed to prove a causal relationship between the accident and her injury.
- The jury returned a verdict in favor of Leonard H. Daley for property damage only.
- The Daleys (plaintiffs-appellants) appealed to the Michigan Court of Appeals.
- The Court of Appeals (intermediate appellate court) affirmed the trial court's directed verdicts, citing the established Michigan law requiring physical impact for recovery for emotional distress.
- The Daleys (plaintiffs-appellants) were granted leave to appeal to the Michigan Supreme Court (highest court).
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 plaintiff need to prove a contemporaneous physical impact to recover damages for a definite and objective physical injury that results from emotional distress caused by a defendant's negligent conduct?
Opinions:
Majority - T. M. Kavanagh, J.
No. Where a definite and objective physical injury is produced as a result of emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct, a plaintiff may recover damages for such physical consequences despite the absence of any physical impact. The court explicitly overrules the prior common law 'impact rule,' which required a contemporaneous physical impact for recovery. The court reasoned that the old rule, based on fears of fraudulent claims and a flood of litigation, is outdated and illogical, especially with advances in medical science. A large majority of other jurisdictions have already repudiated the rule, and its exceptions have made its application inconsistent. The physical consequences of the emotional distress themselves serve as a sufficient guarantee of the genuineness of the claim, rendering the arbitrary impact requirement unnecessary.
Dissenting - T. E. Brennan, C. J.
Yes. While it may be appropriate to adopt the no-impact rule in cases of definite and objective physical injury, this is not such a case. The plaintiffs' claimed injuries—traumatic neurosis, emotional disturbance, and nervous upset—are indefinite and subjective. These are precisely the types of complaints that the impact rule was designed to prevent. Therefore, recovery should be restricted in no-impact cases to situations involving a truly definite and objective physical injury, which is not present here. The trial court's grant of a directed verdict should be affirmed.
Concurring - Dethmers, J.
No. I concur with the majority's decision to overrule the 'impact rule.' I write separately to clarify that this decision is to be given retrospective effect. The new rule applies to the present case and to all 'pending and future cases' in which a trial or appeal occurs after the date this decision is filed. This application is appropriate because the decision does not impair contract obligations or affect vested rights established under the old rule.
Analysis:
This landmark decision fundamentally altered Michigan tort law by abolishing the long-standing 'impact rule' for negligent infliction of emotional distress. The ruling aligned Michigan with the modern majority of jurisdictions, expanding the scope of liability for negligence. By replacing the arbitrary requirement of a physical impact with a new standard requiring a 'definite and objective physical injury,' the court opened the door to previously barred claims. Future litigation would shift from debating the existence of a trivial impact to litigating the nature and causation of the physical manifestations of emotional distress, making medical expert testimony even more critical.
Unlock the full brief for Daley v. LaCroix