## Facts

- Charles LaCroix drove off 15 Mile Road in Macomb County, Michigan and struck a utility pole, breaking high-voltage lines.
- The broken lines contacted the Daley home’s electrical service lines, causing an electrical explosion and property damage.
- Leonard H. Daley sought damages for damage to the farm and residence.
- Estelle Daley and Timothy Daley sought damages for emotional disturbance allegedly caused by the explosion and related events.
- Estelle claimed traumatic neurosis and related symptoms; Timothy claimed emotional disturbance and nervousness.
- Plaintiffs presented lay testimony regarding the event and resulting conditions; Estelle also offered medical evidence supporting neurosis.

## Issues

1. Whether Michigan requires a physical impact to the plaintiff’s person as a prerequisite to recover for negligently inflicted emotional disturbance.
2. Whether the evidence on Estelle and Timothy’s claimed injuries and causation was sufficient to go to the jury, making directed verdicts improper.

## Decision

- The Michigan Supreme Court reversed the directed verdicts against Estelle and Timothy on their personal-injury claims and remanded for a new trial on those claims.
- The court held that Michigan no longer requires a physical impact to recover for negligently inflicted emotional disturbance when the disturbance results in a definite and objective physical injury and proximate causation is proven.
- Applying the directed-verdict standard (viewing proofs favorably to plaintiffs), the court concluded a jury could find causation and compensable injury for both Estelle and Timothy.
- The property-damage judgment in favor of Leonard H. Daley was left undisturbed.

## Legal Principles

- Physical impact is not a categorical prerequisite to recover for negligent infliction of emotional distress in Michigan.
- Recovery may be allowed when defendant’s negligence causes emotional disturbance that produces a definite and objective physical injury, if the usual negligence elements, including proximate causation, are proven.
- Foreseeability is evaluated by reactions expected of normal persons; liability is limited to harms reasonably foreseeable under that standard.
- Mere fright or subjective upset, without definite and objective physical injury, is insufficient.
- Causation may be shown through medical evidence and, in appropriate cases, lay testimony supporting a reasonable inference of causal connection.

## Conclusion

Michigan rejected the impact rule and permitted negligence recovery for emotional disturbance that foreseeably results in definite, objective physical injury, holding that Estelle and Timothy Daley presented sufficient evidence to require jury consideration of causation and damages.


Daley v. LaCroix, 384 Mich. 4, 179 N.W.2d 390 (Mich. 1970)