overruling caselaw imposing the “impact requirement” and holding “that where a definite and objective physical injury is produced as a result of emotional distress proximately caused by defendant’s negligent conduct, the plaintiff in a properly pleaded and proved action may recover in damages for such physical consequences to himself notwithstanding the absence of any physical impact upon plaintiff at the time of the mental shock”
How later courts described this case
- overruling caselaw imposing the “impact requirement” and holding “that where a definite and objective physical injury is produced as a result of emotional distress proximately caused by defendant’s negligent conduct, the plaintiff in a properly pleaded and proved action may recover in damages for such physical consequences to himself notwithstanding the absence of any physical impact upon plaintiff at the time of the mental shock”
- 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
- indicating that a plaintiff without physical injuries may recover for a defendant’s negligence through an “independent basis for tort liability”
Written by the judges who cited it.
Distinguished
Distinguished by Phillips v. Butterball Farms Co., 448 Mich. 239 (1995)
Daley is inapposite because Phillips states a claim for violation of public policy.
The opinion
T. E. Brennan, O. J.
(dissenting). If this were a case where a definite and objective physical in *18 jury was produced without impact by the negligent act of the defendant, it might be appropriate to adopt the rule set forth in the Restatement of Torts. *
This is not such a case. Plaintiffs did not suffer definite and objective physical injury. Plaintiffs suffered, if anything, indefinite and subjective injury. Traumatic neurosis, emotional disturbance and nervous upset are the very type of complaints which ought to be eliminated by restricting “no impact” cases to those in which a definite and objective physical injury occurs.
I would affirm the trial court’s grant of directed verdict.
Kelly, J. concurred with T. E. Brennan, C. J.
Restatement, Torts 2d, § 436(2), pp 456, 457.