# Daley v. LaCroix

> Michigan Supreme Court · September 22, 1970 · 384 Mich. 4

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687919

## Case

- **Full name:** DALEY v. LaCROIX
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** September 22, 1970
- **Citations:** 384 Mich. 4; 179 N.W.2d 390; 1970 Mich. LEXIS 99
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Dethmers
- **Judges:** Kelly, Brennan, Black, Kavanagh, Dethmers, Adams
- **Cited by:** 91 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687919

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- recognizing that weight loss, inability to perform household duties, extreme nervousness, and irritability are facts from which jury could find physical injury
- applying zone of danger doctrine and also requiring that plaintiff suffer severe emotional distress with physical manifestations
- rejecting the “impact” requirement for common-law claims for emotional distress proximately caused by a defendant’s negligent conduct

## Opinion text

Dethmers, J.
(concurring). I concur with and am signing the opinion of Mr. Justice Thomas M. Kavanagh in this cause, overruling the so-called “impact” rule in emotional distress cases heretofore followed by this Court.
I should like, however, to add a few words, in the interests of clarity, with respect to the retrospective effect of this decision.
This overruling decision is to be given retrospective effect, inasmuch as neither impairment of the obligations of contracts nor injurious affecting of vested rights, under earlier decisions, is involved. The overruled decisions, of course, remain the law of the ease with respect to the particular cases in which rendered. Donohue v. Russell (1933), 264 Mich 217 . As in Bricker v. Green (1946), 313 Mich 218 , this overruling decision applies to this case and to all “pending and future eases”. This does not limit the applicability of this decision to cases in which the cause of action accrues after the date of filing this decision, but includes all cases in which trial or appeal occurs after that date.
Black and T. G. Kavanagh, JJ., concurred with Dethmers, J.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9687919. Public record. Not legal advice.