exceptions to governmental immunity in Michigan

2010Although this Court must construe the exceptions to governmental immunity narrowly, Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 158 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), this Court is not at liberty to ignore the plain language of the statute under the guise of interpreting it narrowly, see Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich 192, 196 ; 694 NW2d 544 (2005), and MCL 691.1402(1) plainly and unequivocally imposes liability on municipalities for defects in sidewalks — even if the defect in the sidewalk is occasioned by the presence of a structure that the municipality would normally not have a duty t

2010Although this Court must construe the exceptions to governmental immunity narrowly, Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 158 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), this Court is not at liberty to ignore the plain language of the statute under the guise of interpreting it narrowly, see Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich 192, 196 ; 694 NW2d 544 (2005), and MCL 691.1402(1) plainly and unequivocally imposes liability on municipalities for defects in sidewalks — even if the defect in the sidewalk is occasioned by the presence of a structure that the municipality would normally not have a duty t

2017Indeed, “[a]lthough the GTLA proclaims that it contains all the exceptions to governmental immunity, the Legislature remains free to create additional exceptions, either within the GTLA or another statute.” State Farm Fire & Cas Co v Corby Energy Servs, Inc, 271 Mich App 480, 485 ; 722 NW2d 906 (2006).

2017Indeed, “[a]lthough the GTLA proclaims that it contains all the exceptions to governmental immunity, the Legislature remains free to create additional exceptions, either within the GTLA or another statute.” State Farm Fire & Cas Co v Corby Energy Servs, Inc, 271 Mich App 480, 485 ; 722 NW2d 906 (2006).

2008In Endykiewicz , a unanimous Court suggested that the exceptions to governmental immunity should be construed expansively in order to accomplish the legislative purpose of “provid[ing] an opportunity to obtain redress from the responsible governmental agency for those injured as a result of the negligence of the government....” Id. at 388-389 .

2008In Endykiewicz, a unanimous Court suggested that the exceptions to governmental immunity should be construed expansively in order to accomplish the legislative purpose of “provid[ing] an opportunity to obtain redress from the responsible governmental agency for those injured as a result of the negligence of the government . . . .” Id. at 388-389 .

2008This appears to me to be the appropriate rule when interpreting an exception to governmental immunity. 17 31 Michigan Law & Practice (2d ed), Torts, § 72, p 179. 18 See Montgomery v Stephan, 359 Mich 33, 49 ; 101 NW2d 227 (1960). 19 MCL 600.2922(6). 7 caused by the motor vehicle collision.

2008This appears to me to be the appropriate rule when interpreting an exception to governmental immunity. 17 31 Michigan Law & Practice (2d ed), Torts, § 72, p 179. 18 See Montgomery v Stephan, 359 Mich 33, 49 ; 101 NW2d 227 (1960). 19 MCL 600.2922(6). 7 caused by the motor vehicle collision.

2017Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 479-480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008).

2017Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 479-480 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008).

2017A municipal corporation need not plead defective notice as an affirmative defense because municipalities are presumed to have immunity; rather, “the burden is on plaintiff to prove that one of the exceptions to governmental immunity is applicable.” Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290, 299-300 ; 871 NW2d 129 (2015).

2017A municipal corporation need not plead defective notice as an affirmative defense because municipalities are presumed to have immunity; rather, “the burden is on plaintiff to prove that one of the exceptions to governmental immunity is applicable.” Fairley v Dep’t of Corrections, 497 Mich 290, 299-300 ; 871 NW2d 129 (2015).

2025The exceptions to governmental immunity, which are expressed in the statute, are “to be narrowly construed.” Cannon Twp v Rockford Pub Sch, 311 Mich App 403, 415 ; 875 NW2d 242 (2015).

2025The exceptions to governmental immunity, which are expressed in the statute, are “to be narrowly construed.” Cannon Twp v Rockford Pub Sch, 311 Mich App 403, 415 ; 875 NW2d 242 (2015).

2019Wood v City of Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 420 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018).

2019Wood v City of Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 420 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018).

2015For these reasons, we conclude that plaintiff Fairley’s notice was insufficient to maintain a claim against MDOC and, as a result, Fairley’s claim should be dismissed. 15 Moreover, as this Court stated in Rowland, common sense counsels in favor of this outcome, given that “the Legislature is not even required to provide [any] exception to governmental immunity, it surely has the authority to allow such suits only upon compliance with rational limits.” Id. at 212 . 9 Accordingly, the Court of Claims improperly denied defendant’s motion for summary disposition.

2010Although this Court must construe the exceptions to governmental immunity narrowly, Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 158 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), this Court is not at liberty to ignore the plain language of the statute under the guise of interpreting it narrowly, see Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich 192, 196 ; 694 NW2d 544 (2005), and MCL 691.1402(1) plainly and unequivocally imposes liability on municipalities for defects in sidewalks — even if the defect in the sidewalk is occasioned by the presence of a structure that the municipality would normally not have a duty t

2010Although this Court must construe the exceptions to governmental immunity narrowly, Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 158 ; 615 NW2d 702 (2000), this Court is not at liberty to ignore the plain language of the statute under the guise of interpreting it narrowly, see Echelon Homes, LLC v Carter Lumber Co, 472 Mich 192, 196 ; 694 NW2d 544 (2005), and MCL 691.1402(1) plainly and unequivocally imposes liability on municipalities for defects in sidewalks — even if the defect in the sidewalk is occasioned by the presence of a structure that the municipality would normally not have a duty t

2010Maskery v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 468 Mich 609, 614 ; 664 NW2d 165 (2003).

2010Maskery v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 468 Mich 609, 614 ; 664 NW2d 165 (2003).

2006Ballard v Ypsilanti Twp, 457 Mich 564, 569 ; 577 NW2d 890 (1998).

2006Ballard v Ypsilanti Twp, 457 Mich 564, 569 ; 577 NW2d 890 (1998).

2003The Supreme Court also acknowledged that in Pompey v Gen Motors Corp, 385 Mich 537 ; 189 NW2d 243 (1971), it held that cumulative causes of action *501 for civil rights violations may be created with regard to private entities.

2003The Supreme Court also acknowledged that in Pompey v Gen Motors Corp, 385 Mich 537 ; 189 NW2d 243 (1971), it held that cumulative causes of action *501 for civil rights violations may be created with regard to private entities.

2000Horace, supra at 754, n. 6 , 575 N.W.2d 762 ; Reardon, supra at 412 , 424 N.W.2d 248 . [17] See Franges v. General Motors Corp., 404 Mich. 590, 611 , 274 N.W.2d 392 (1979). [18] The dissent accuses us of reading "the first and second sentence of M.C.L. § 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1) separately. " Op., p. 727 (emphasis in the original).

2000Horace, supra at 754, n. 6 , 575 N.W.2d 762 ; Reardon, supra at 412 , 424 N.W.2d 248 . [17] See Franges v. General Motors Corp., 404 Mich. 590, 611 , 274 N.W.2d 392 (1979). [18] The dissent accuses us of reading "the first and second sentence of M.C.L. § 691.1402(1); MSA 3.996(102)(1) separately. " Op., p. 727 (emphasis in the original).

1997The trial court herein relied on two cases that support this conclusion: Putman v Wayne Co Community College (After Remand), 189 Mich App 557, 558-559 ; 473 NW2d 711 (1991), and Taylor v Detroit, 182 Mich App 583, 588 ; 452 NW2d 826 (1989), In Taylor , the plaintiffs son was electrocuted after he entered an electrical substation that the city owned and operated.

1997The trial court herein relied on two cases that support this conclusion: Putman v Wayne Co Community College (After Remand), 189 Mich App 557, 558-559 ; 473 NW2d 711 (1991), and Taylor v Detroit, 182 Mich App 583, 588 ; 452 NW2d 826 (1989), In Taylor , the plaintiffs son was electrocuted after he entered an electrical substation that the city owned and operated.

1997The trial court herein relied on two cases that support this conclusion: Putman v Wayne Co Community College (After Remand), 189 Mich App 557, 558-559 ; 473 NW2d 711 (1991), and Taylor v Detroit, 182 Mich App 583, 588 ; 452 NW2d 826 (1989), In Taylor , the plaintiffs son was electrocuted after he entered an electrical substation that the city owned and operated.

1997The trial court herein relied on two cases that support this conclusion: Putman v Wayne Co Community College (After Remand), 189 Mich App 557, 558-559 ; 473 NW2d 711 (1991), and Taylor v Detroit, 182 Mich App 583, 588 ; 452 NW2d 826 (1989), In Taylor , the plaintiffs son was electrocuted after he entered an electrical substation that the city owned and operated.

1988Plaintiff appealed a trial court denial of his request for a jury instruction to the effect that the "maintenance of the highway includes maintenance of lighting along the highway.” We previously concluded that the county had the duty to repair and maintain the street lighting in this case because the illumination constituted part of the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” Zyskowski v Habelmann, 150 Mich App 230 ; 388 NW2d 315 (1986).

1988Plaintiff appealed a trial court denial of his request for a jury instruction to the effect that the "maintenance of the highway includes maintenance of lighting along the highway.” We previously concluded that the county had the duty to repair and maintain the street lighting in this case because the illumination constituted part of the "improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel.” Zyskowski v Habelmann, 150 Mich App 230 ; 388 NW2d 315 (1986).

1983We adopt the reasoning used by the Court in Sziber, supra. We will not expand the scope of the exceptions to governmental immunity beyond the classes clearly covered by the language of the Legislature.

1978Thomas, supra. Plaintiffs pled negligence and nuisance and argue that the state’s conduct falls within two of the exceptions to governmental immunity recognized by this Court in Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 68 Mich App 91, 95 ; 241 NW2d 771 (1976).

1978Thomas, supra. Plaintiffs pled negligence and nuisance and argue that the state’s conduct falls within two of the exceptions to governmental immunity recognized by this Court in Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 68 Mich App 91, 95 ; 241 NW2d 771 (1976).

1978Thomas, supra. Plaintiffs pled negligence and nuisance and argue that the state’s conduct falls within two of the exceptions to governmental immunity recognized by this Court in Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 68 Mich App 91, 95 ; 241 NW2d 771 (1976).