*1 650 3?8 637. Dissenting by Souris, parents did, guilty the defendant were actionable within the rule of law set forth It judge was, above. therefore, error for the circuit to set aside the verdict of the and to enter parents for defendant non obstante vere- dicto.
Judgment should be reversed and the re- cause may manded. Plaintiffs tax thеir costs. T. and M. JJ., concurred with Kavanagh Adams, Somas, 1 part J., took no decision of this Brennan, case.
MANIE MATSON OLDSMOBILE-CADILLAC COMPANY. v. op the
Decision Court. Negligence Damages—Emotional 1. — Distress. Appeals disallowing Determination of Court of of dam- ages for arising plaintiff’s emotional distress in action from driving arrest while an automobile which carried stolen dealer plates, negligently placed by defendant, license thereon affirmed. [4] [2] [5] [1, 22 Am Jur 20 Am Jur 20 Am Jur Am Jur 6] 22 Am 2d, References 2d, Damages 2d, 2d, Jur, Damages Costs Courts Raise §§ § Imprisonment § 10,14, 71. 195. § 195. Points § 130. Headnotes O.-C. Co. Separate Opinion. Kelly » J.,
Dethmers, O. JJ. Negligence Damages—Emotional Physical — Distress Without *2 Injury. recovery There сan be no in this State mental or emotional for by unaccompanied physical injury, arising distress out of simple negligence. Damages—Emotional Physical 3. Same — Distress Without In- jury. Plaintiff, driving recently purchased automobile, who was on placed plates, which dealer had stolen dealer license and who driving was arrested an with stolen plates, automobile for alleged held, not entitled to recover nervous distress and' for upset, physical injury. emotional absent Opinions—Concurrence 4. in Courts — Result. impossible It to tell what basis concurrence with- full by only held Iustices who concur in result. Negligence—Emotional Physical Costs — 5. Distress Without In- jury. appeal Appeals costs are No awarded in Court decision from of recovery plaintiff which denied nervous distress and for upset unaccompanied by physical injury, emotional which re- driving sulted her arrest car stolen dealer from for plates, negligently by dealer, autоmobile furnished defendant plaintiff’s proofs because such in this distress case are of inadequate judgment any as a matter law to allow a in of therefor, party having prevailed amount neither in full. Separate Opinion. Kavanagh,
T. M. JJ. Souris, Adams, Negligence Physical Injury— Distress 6. —Emotional Without Damages —Evidence. is denied nervous distress emotional
Plaintiff for upset, unaccompanied physical injury, resulting her from driving plates, arrest car with stolen license for furnished negligently by plaintiff’s dealer, automobile because defendant proofs inadequate such in this case are a matter law to allow amount therеfor. Appeal Appeals, from Court Division Fitz- 3; T, gerald, Kavanagh, P. J., Holbrook and G. JJ7 Mich 650. Piercey (John H.), Muskegon; part, affirming (Calendar No. 16, 7, December Submitted 51,424.) 7, Decided March Docket No. App affirmed.
2 Mich against Complaint Florence corpora- Michigan Company, a Oldsmobile-Cadillac plaintiff’s damages arising from arrest tion, for driving which carried stolen an automobile while plates, placed thereon defendant. license dealer plaintiff Judgment in trial court. Defendant part Judgment appealed. affirmed and reversed appeals. part Appeals. Plaintiff Affirmed. $ McCroslcey, Reаmon,
Marcus, Libner, Williams Kortering, counsel), plain- Dilley (Vernon D. tiff.
Poppen, (Harold M. Street, Street S Sorensen counsel), for defendant. appeal granted This is an on leave
O’Harí, Appeals (2 App of the Court of from a decision plaintiff-appel- 315), a for which modified in circuit court. The facts аnd the lant entered issues Appeals. accurately the Court of are stated quote: We 6, 1963, the Manie, December Ernest husband “On agreement plaintiff, into an with the the entered Company Muskegon
Matson Oldsmobile-Cadillac purchase with a 1961 automobile to a 1960 Cadillac had in on it. The 1961 Comet to traded Comet be removed attached, hitch which was to a trailer Rapids originally firm which installed the Grand exchange. contemplated prior time, At that to the it, license plates with the same owner remained Matsón O.-C. Co. Manie the it not been for removal the trailer hitch, had plates would have been the switсhed from the Comet as an However, the accommodation to to. Mr. Manie Cadillac. company for salesman defendant plate’ a ‘dealer to attached to the-Cadillac be used trailer hitch could be removed in until the Grand Rapids and the returned. .Comet driving cars, the two went to Grand Mаnies, “The accompanied Rapids, Mrs. Manie’s'sister. After removed, hitch was Mr. Manie the trailer drove Muskegon Mapie, back to driv- the .and Mrs. Comet shop- ing ping. do Cadillac, the decided to some Christmas p.m., Wyoming police depart- At about 9:30 pull required over side her to to the ment cruiser requested tо and she was follow the of cruiser arrived home about call, road the (cid:127) police headquarters. After Mr. to . Manie telephone 10.:30,he received-a being Wyoming, that Mrs. was held the Manie police Mr. Manie driving plates.’ station for a car with ‘stolen company’s the defendant called salesman plate police offered to take another dealer the who returning use Cadillac to Mus- station kegon, picked Mr. the offer, but Manie declined up.the plate'himself Wyoming’ it and took to the police By station. Mrs. Manie was able 'approximately following leave, was a.m. the day. .... illеgal “Mrs. received a ticket for use of plates. company The salesman defendant dealer called that the police Wyoming station was informed plate placed dealer he had on the Cadillac operator registered in the name of the aof used Rapids auction thе Grand car lot and. automobile Mrs; following day, ; Manie went to de- area.. The. place of business and discussed the ticket fendant’s offered to take care with the salesman who proper by wáy explaining *4 of the matter' to the' ticket retained Manie the offer and officials. Mrs. an declined reрresent attorney her on the ticket. Ulti- to mately, explained the- authorities matter the was happened regarding the how she plate -to have an<3 Mich by charge by accepted the court and the this was dropped. against was automobile defendant “Suit dealer^ containing August, by 1964, Mrs. started threе counts: negligence;, one for breach one of plate; valid and a failure to furnish contract for misrepresentation innocent, on the based one of the effect that though to the mistaken, statement proper driven on to be condition inwas Cadillac highway. the ' charges denying filed and was “An answer on the court without before case tried resulting of $500 in a 1965, June favor for brought expenses and also her Manie for of Mrs. and nervousness embarrassment, humiliation, by previous the har- and events subjected teasing her was she assment and subsequent coi-employees the ticket because of prоceedings.” legal Appeals held:
The Court portion of its in that is affirmed “The trial court holding plaintiff stated a cause decision action of the award portion as to the reversed
beyond set forth.” herein the sums portion disallowed award . The of the Appeals nervousness, humili- unaccompаnied ation, and emotional physical injury. based on The disallowance was pp § general Torts, 48, Am Jur, in 52 rule found general agree rule cited do not that the 392,393. We precedent specific Michigan case controls since involved. question Nelson
The
considered the
Court first
(80
Rep
(1899),
Am
should in a flood of would result litigation injury the in where cases complained may easily feigned be of without detec- damages the must and where on mere tion, rest con- jecture speculation. difficulty or The which often alleged physical injuries, in of in exists cases deter- * * * they mining would not exist, whether only greatly increased, be but wide field would opened speculative fictitious or To be claims. contrary prin- such a would be establish ciples doctrine * * * public policy. think We the most public as well as cases, and better-considered reliable policy, justify holding plaintiff fully us the in that injuries fright, recover for occasioned cannot personal injury” (Em- immediate there was no supra, supplied.) p phasis Crawford, Nelson v. as of that our denied
Thus, Court unaccompanied by physical for emotional (cid:127) Michigan. injury and the rule It established in there with be noted the Court dealt should excepted only. wrong, It a malicious injure could аn intent be shown. where question again this addressed itself to Court Our Pacholek, 222 Mich 157. In that Alexander alleged trespass on an was based the action case entry private an unauthorized into a the nature proofs of the At the conclusion the trial home. a verdict and to direct refused court unequiv damages. there Our Court $500 awarded 163): (p ocally held may respective be the merits of “Whatever damage aligned this has itself with
rules no can hold that which those courts Mich '378 6Í>ó by O’Hara, fright or mental distress assessed unless accom- panied physical injury. The ease is devoid apply assault, if and, evidence we supra, rule laid in Nelson v. Crawford, down defendant was to a directed entitled verdict. The granting trial court was error not defendant’s (Emphasis supplied.) motion.”
Appellant
claims
rule was
this
modified
Stew
*6
art
ex
Rudner,
v.
contractu. directed verdict was denied and jury damages. (pp the 475, 476): awarded This Court held damages part] pain [in “The claimed are and * ** suffering. justified mental in The finding directly that these resulted from defend- perform obligations.” ant’s failure to his contractual (Emphasis supplied.) applying negli- As modification of the rule gence by appellant, cases as claimed several infir- present. only signed mities are First, four Justices opinion. the impossible Four “cоncurred in the result.” It is n tell on what basis full concurrence concurring only. was withheld those case, in result Secondly, that the action was for breach precedent of contract. ¥e consider here established Only passing ex delicto. in actions in reference is made speak- Stewart to situation in tort cases. In employed ing of the caution courts have in not allowing suffering, physi- for mental absent injury, (p 467): in that cal the Court case said n objections “These and similar applicable equally disturbance, mental to tort and thoroughly actions, been have contract so demol- years in recent ished for that we will not take (2d ed), review. See Prosser, Law of Torts Harper § 37, 1 James, and Law of Torts, ch Although cases and articles there cited. law Matson O.-C. Co. Maníb Opinion by O’Hara, J. inis a state in this marked transition and field early fluidity, not too to state is that there is recovery.” (Emphasis sup- marked plied.) towards trend “ - foregoing language On the basis we cannot say repudiated Court or the rule this modified cases in oúr State its decision in Stewart.
Appellant further contends that modifications of the Nelson-Alexander have been made in the rule compensation field of workmen’s and in actions for correct, we loss consortium. Whether such be appel- do not and need not here decide. We think pass. correctly question lant states the we must in this case: lay “This is asked, here and now, to before the bench and bar this State & new workable damages,
rule in area of this emotional a rule which reasoning will set forth whether the Nelson Alexаnder still to .be followed.” help We derive little from decisions from other *7 jurisdictions. accurately The state of the law is p characterized 64 ALR2d at 103: “The law in case the field here treated is in an unparalleled any almost state of confusion and at- tempt likely exegesis'of at a'consistent the authorities is perplexity. to break down in embarrassed Early attempts by ques- the courts to deal with complicated by any'adequate were tions the lack of body legal by the authorities as well inade- quacy of the factual or scientific information avail- ' able.”
Plaintiff-appellant contеnds that York New Jersey repudiated'the New have N on-Alexander els Defendant, rule. contrariwise, asserts the cases that distinguished upon she can relies their facts. speak finality must correct, we Whichever is Michigan present in that at hold for this We State. emotional dis- for mental or is no there tress ical phys- simple negligence, arising absent out of injury. pre- background does not this case
The fáctual abrogating persuasive the rule. reason sent upon damage proof relied element of of this The by appendix appellant as follows: in her upset you? entire Manie, did this incident Mrs. “Q. “A. sir. Yes, upset you? it still “Q. Does sir. Yes, “A. person? you a nervous “Q. Are Everybody Mrs. Manie? guess tells me so. so. Well, “A. “Q. “A. I you pills, Do take do. Yes, I pills, you. if know? “Q. What kind “A. Librium. your that calm nerves? “Q. Is Yes, “A. sir. prescription? doctor “Q. Is prescription. “A. Dr. Voikos pills you this incident? “Q. Did take before speak. “A. Not pills though? “Q. You take did pills years. I taken off and on On A. have Third Street. apparently Street. I didn’t some- “Mr. —missed thing. you did miss?
“The Court. What Dr. “Mr. Street. Wickes? “The Court. Voikos. picture? get How he into the “Mr. does Street. Kortering. prescribing He is the doctor for “Mr. pills.. object. I “Mr. Street. Kortering. objection you I if want “Mr. have no it.
to strike right. Court. All “The *8 (X-C. Co. Manie v. J. your place at “Q. incident, Manie, After this Mrs. employment, сertain were conversations made to by your co-employees you incident?' reference to this * “A. Yes, sir. they upset you?
“Q. Did Yes,
“A. sir. they
“Q. Have continued?
“A. Yes, sin they upset you?
“Q. Do still yes, “A. Oh,, sir. you upset today being
“Q. Are about court? “A. Yes, sir.”
By proof foregoing reason of the limited al- leged upset, resultant nervous distress emotional disposed precedent. we are not to disturb our settled Appeals The decision of the Court of is affirmed. party having prevailed No costs, neither in full. C. J., J., concurred with Dethmers, Kelly, O’Hara, (concurring affirmance). If it be Souris, arguendo,
assumed, this State’s law allows in a action for negligent emotional distress caused a defendant’s involving physical impact upon plaintiff, act not plaintiff’s proofs of such this case would inadequate upon aas matter of law which allow a amount therefor. The sole proofs, quoted my substance of those in full in opinion, up- Brother O’Hara’s is that the “incident” plaintiff, upset set that she been further has co-employees relating comments madе her there- conceivably, pills to and, that she has taken some for her non distress! De minimus curat lex. We obliged Appeals’ are to affirm the Court decision *9 378 Opinion by SoUkis, may opinion regarding appli-
whatever be our cable law recoverable cases. circumstances, Under sucb not tbe case in tbis is “speak wbicb tbis Court undertake should finаlity” legal vexing aon issue wbicb is courts and legal throughout commentators tbe common-law enough pronounce- world. There for sucb they ments tbis Court when must be made for purpose. decisional may
Affirmed. Defendant tax costs. its Kavanagh T. M. Adams, JJ., concurred with Souris,' J., did not sit.
Black, part J., took no tbe decision of tbis Brennan, case.