Daley v. LaCroix

Supreme Court of Michigan · 1970 · Torts

TortsNIEDphysical impact rulecontemporaneous observanceelectrical surgenegligent infliction of emotional distressimpact rulephysical consequences

Facts

Defendant's car left the road near plaintiffs' farm, traveled through the air, and sheared off a utility pole. High-voltage lines snapped and struck the electrical lines leading into plaintiffs' house, causing a large electrical explosion and substantial property damage. Plaintiffs claimed that Estelle Daley suffered traumatic neurosis, emotional disturbance, and nervous upset, and that Timothy Daley suffered emotional disturbance and nervousness from the explosion and surrounding circumstances. At trial, Estelle also presented psychiatric testimony linking her condition to the explosion.

Issue

Whether Michigan should continue to require a contemporaneous physical impact before allowing recovery for physical injury resulting from emotional distress negligently caused by a defendant. Also, whether plaintiffs Estelle and Timothy Daley presented sufficient evidence to reach the jury under the rule adopted by the court.

Rule

Where a definite and objective physical injury is produced as a result of emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant's negligent conduct, the plaintiff may recover for those physical consequences even though there was no physical impact on the plaintiff at the time of the mental shock. Recovery is limited by the normal-person standard unless the defendant had specific knowledge of the plaintiff's unusual sensitivity, and the plaintiff must prove that the physical harm or illness was the natural result of the fright proximately caused by the defendant's conduct.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Grand Rapids, Nolan Pierce negligently backs a delivery van into a gas regulator outside Maya Chen's duplex, causing a violent blast and shower of debris against the exterior wall. Maya, who is inside and never touched, develops severe tremors, repeated vomiting, and rapid weight loss over the next week, and her physician testifies those symptoms were triggered by the fright from the blast.

Under the governing rule, may Maya recover against Nolan for her bodily condition?

Explanation. The majority abolished the physical-impact requirement for this category of negligence claims. Recovery is allowed where defendant's negligence proximately causes emotional distress and that distress produces a definite and objective physical injury. Maya alleges concrete physical consequences—tremors, vomiting, and weight loss—and medical testimony supports causation, so lack of impact does not bar recovery.