scope of governmental immunity in Michigan

2025“The scope of governmental immunity is construed broadly, while exceptions to it are construed narrowly.” Linton v Arenac County Rd Comm’n, 273 Mich App 107, 112 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006).

2017“The scope of governmental immunity is construed broadly, while exceptions to it are construed narrowly.” Linton v Arenac County Road Com’n, 273 Mich App 107, 112 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006).

2025“The scope of governmental immunity is construed broadly, while exceptions to it are construed narrowly.” Linton v Arenac County Rd Comm’n, 273 Mich App 107, 112 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006).

2017“The scope of governmental immunity is construed broadly, while exceptions to it are construed narrowly.” Linton v Arenac County Road Com’n, 273 Mich App 107, 112 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006).

2018Id.

2016Id.

2000Further, we must decide whether the highway exception creates a duty, with regard to the state and county road commissions, to install, maintain, repair, or improve traffic control devices, including traffic signs. 1 In Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), this Court confronted and resolved conflicting case law defining the scope of governmental immunity.

2000Further, we must decide whether the highway exception creates a duty, with regard to the state and county road commissions, to install, maintain, repair, or improve traffic control devices, including traffic signs. 1 In Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), this Court confronted and resolved conflicting case law defining the scope of governmental immunity.

2018More importantly, the Supreme Court, or a conflict panel of this Court, needs to reexamine the ipse dixit statement made in Manning, 202 Mich App at 699 , that “[g]overnmental immunity is not a defense to a claim brought under the Civil Rights Act.” See Mack, 467 Mich at 197-203 (holding that governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense).

2018More importantly, the Supreme Court, or a conflict panel of this Court, needs to reexamine the ipse dixit statement made in Manning , 202 Mich. App. at 699 , 509 N.W.2d 874 , that "[g]overnmental immunity is not a defense to a claim brought under the Civil Rights Act." See Mack , 467 Mich. at 197 -203 , 649 N.W.2d 47 (holding that governmental immunity is not an affirmative defense).

2024In Odom, 482 Mich at 472-473 , our Supreme Court clarified the scope of governmental immunity for individuals as applied to intentional torts by reaffirming and restating the test from Ross.

2022The scope of governmental immunity “is broadly interpreted, and exceptions to it are narrowly construed.” Margaris v Genesee Co, 324 Mich App 111, 116 ; 919 NW2d 659 (2018).

2022The scope of governmental immunity “is broadly interpreted, and exceptions to it are narrowly construed.” Margaris v Genesee Co, 324 Mich App 111, 116 ; 919 NW2d 659 (2018).

2020“Except as otherwise provided, the GTLA broadly shields and grants immunity to governmental agencies from tort liability when an agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 355 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011).

2020“Except as otherwise provided, the GTLA broadly shields and grants immunity to governmental agencies from tort liability when an agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.” Snead v John Carlo, Inc, 294 Mich App 343, 355 ; 813 NW2d 294 (2011).

2020Yet, it has long been recognized that “[t]he right to recover money illegally exacted does not depend upon the statute.” Pingree v Mut Gas Co, 107 Mich 156, 157 ; 65 NW 6 (1895).

2020Yet, it has long been recognized that “[t]he right to recover money illegally exacted does not depend upon the statute.” Pingree v Mut Gas Co, 107 Mich 156, 157 ; 65 NW 6 (1895).

2019Thus, the City’s argument that only the Director is empowered to enforce MCL 125.1522 lacks merit. 45 Detroit Retail Druggists’ Ass’n v Detroit, 267 Mich 405 ; 255 NW 217 (1934). 46 Fletcher Oil Co v Bay City, 247 Mich 572 ; 266 NW 248 (1929). 47 Vernor v Secretary of State, 179 Mich 157 ; 146 NW 338 (1914). 48 MCL 691.1401 et seq. 49 Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 194-195 ; 735 NW2d 628 (2007). 18 contravention of the broad scope of governmental immunity . . . .’ ”50 And here, not only is there no express legislative authorization, but there is simply no indication that the Legislature i

2019Thus, the City’s argument that only the Director is empowered to enforce MCL 125.1522 lacks merit. 45 Detroit Retail Druggists’ Ass’n v Detroit, 267 Mich 405 ; 255 NW 217 (1934). 46 Fletcher Oil Co v Bay City, 247 Mich 572 ; 266 NW 248 (1929). 47 Vernor v Secretary of State, 179 Mich 157 ; 146 NW 338 (1914). 48 MCL 691.1401 et seq. 49 Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 194-195 ; 735 NW2d 628 (2007). 18 contravention of the broad scope of governmental immunity . . . .’ ”50 And here, not only is there no express legislative authorization, but there is simply no indication that the Legislature i

2019Thus, the City’s argument that only the Director is empowered to enforce MCL 125.1522 lacks merit. 45 Detroit Retail Druggists’ Ass’n v Detroit, 267 Mich 405 ; 255 NW 217 (1934). 46 Fletcher Oil Co v Bay City, 247 Mich 572 ; 266 NW 248 (1929). 47 Vernor v Secretary of State, 179 Mich 157 ; 146 NW 338 (1914). 48 MCL 691.1401 et seq. 49 Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 194-195 ; 735 NW2d 628 (2007). 18 contravention of the broad scope of governmental immunity . . . .’ ”50 And here, not only is there no express legislative authorization, but there is simply no indication that the Legislature i

2019Thus, the City’s argument that only the Director is empowered to enforce MCL 125.1522 lacks merit. 45 Detroit Retail Druggists’ Ass’n v Detroit, 267 Mich 405 ; 255 NW 217 (1934). 46 Fletcher Oil Co v Bay City, 247 Mich 572 ; 266 NW 248 (1929). 47 Vernor v Secretary of State, 179 Mich 157 ; 146 NW 338 (1914). 48 MCL 691.1401 et seq. 49 Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 194-195 ; 735 NW2d 628 (2007). 18 contravention of the broad scope of governmental immunity . . . .’ ”50 And here, not only is there no express legislative authorization, but there is simply no indication that the Legislature i

2019Thus, the City’s argument that only the Director is empowered to enforce MCL 125.1522 lacks merit. 45 Detroit Retail Druggists’ Ass’n v Detroit, 267 Mich 405 ; 255 NW 217 (1934). 46 Fletcher Oil Co v Bay City, 247 Mich 572 ; 266 NW 248 (1929). 47 Vernor v Secretary of State, 179 Mich 157 ; 146 NW 338 (1914). 48 MCL 691.1401 et seq. 49 Lash v Traverse City, 479 Mich 180, 194-195 ; 735 NW2d 628 (2007). 18 contravention of the broad scope of governmental immunity . . . .’ ”50 And here, not only is there no express legislative authorization, but there is simply no indication that the Legislature i

2015Fane, 465 Mich at 74 .

2004The majority states: "We do not believe that our Supreme Court intended the court rule to be read so restrictively that governmental bodies would be forced through discovery and trial whenever their motion for dismissal is denied on grounds other than MCR 2.116(C)(7), merely because the plaintiff contends that the governmental agency is not immune. [Op. 625, 689 N.W.2d 506 (emphasis added).]" Impliedly, if not outrightly stated, the majority believes that plaintiffs allege facts outside the scope of governmental immunity simply to avoid governmental immunity, and not because the cause of actio

2000Because summary disposition can be affirmed on the basis of the quasi- judicial immunity principles described there, I also conclude that it is unnecessary for us to consider the application of the governmental immunity act (part m A of the majority’s opinion) or the propriety or applicability of Bullock v Huster, 209 Mich App 551, 555 ; 532 NW2d 202 (1995), vacated and remanded 451 Mich 884 (1996), (On Remand), 218 Mich App 400 ; 554 NW2d 47 (1996), and further conclude we need not “hold that private psychologists performing court-ordered custody evaluations are excluded from the scope of gov

2000Because summary disposition can be affirmed on the basis of the quasi- judicial immunity principles described there, I also conclude that it is unnecessary for us to consider the application of the governmental immunity act (part m A of the majority’s opinion) or the propriety or applicability of Bullock v Huster, 209 Mich App 551, 555 ; 532 NW2d 202 (1995), vacated and remanded 451 Mich 884 (1996), (On Remand), 218 Mich App 400 ; 554 NW2d 47 (1996), and further conclude we need not “hold that private psychologists performing court-ordered custody evaluations are excluded from the scope of gov

2000Because summary disposition can be affirmed on the basis of the quasi- judicial immunity principles described there, I also conclude that it is unnecessary for us to consider the application of the governmental immunity act (part m A of the majority’s opinion) or the propriety or applicability of Bullock v Huster, 209 Mich App 551, 555 ; 532 NW2d 202 (1995), vacated and remanded 451 Mich 884 (1996), (On Remand), 218 Mich App 400 ; 554 NW2d 47 (1996), and further conclude we need not “hold that private psychologists performing court-ordered custody evaluations are excluded from the scope of gov

2000Because summary disposition can be affirmed on the basis of the quasi- judicial immunity principles described there, I also conclude that it is unnecessary for us to consider the application of the governmental immunity act (part m A of the majority’s opinion) or the propriety or applicability of Bullock v Huster, 209 Mich App 551, 555 ; 532 NW2d 202 (1995), vacated and remanded 451 Mich 884 (1996), (On Remand), 218 Mich App 400 ; 554 NW2d 47 (1996), and further conclude we need not “hold that private psychologists performing court-ordered custody evaluations are excluded from the scope of gov

1996Chaney v Dep’t of Transportation, 447 Mich 145, 154 ; 523 NW2d 762 (1994).

1996Chaney v Dep’t of Transportation, 447 Mich 145, 154 ; 523 NW2d 762 (1994).

1992Justice Boyle, in her concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 207 -208, expressed the view that a damages claim alleging a nuisance per se would fall outside the scope of governmental immunity, relying upon Wyoming Twp, supra, Trowbridge, supra, and Royston v City of Charlotte, 278 Mich 255 ; 270 NW 288 (1936).

1992Justice Boyle, in her concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 207 -208, expressed the view that a damages claim alleging a nuisance per se would fall outside the scope of governmental immunity, relying upon Wyoming Twp, supra, Trowbridge, supra, and Royston v City of Charlotte, 278 Mich 255 ; 270 NW 288 (1936).

1992Justice BOYLE, in her concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 207 -208, expressed the view that a damages claim alleging a nuisance per se would fall outside the scope of governmental immunity, relying upon Wyoming Twp, supra, Trowbridge, supra, and Royston v City of Charlotte, 278 Mich 255 ; 270 NW 288 (1936).

1992Justice Boyle, in her concurring opinion in Hadfield, 430 Mich 207 -208, expressed the view that a damages claim alleging a nuisance per se would fall outside the scope of governmental immunity, relying upon Wyoming Twp, supra, Trowbridge, supra, and Royston v City of Charlotte, 278 Mich 255 ; 270 NW 288 (1936).

1991Reardon, supra. Reversed and remanded for entry of judgment for the defendant.

1988See 1986 PA 175 , § 7(2), MCL 691.1407(2); MSA 3.996(107)(2). 5 The broad scope of governmental immunity is illustrated in the post-Ross decision of Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), in which we held that there is no intentional tort exception to governmental immunity. 6 There is no testimony in the record upon which to base a determination that the number of master keys in circulation was excessive. 7 The only arguable defect of plaintiffs room was the chain lock.

1988See 1986 PA 175 , § 7(2), MCL 691.1407(2); MSA 3.996(107)(2). 5 The broad scope of governmental immunity is illustrated in the post-Ross decision of Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), in which we held that there is no intentional tort exception to governmental immunity. 6 There is no testimony in the record upon which to base a determination that the number of master keys in circulation was excessive. 7 The only arguable defect of plaintiffs room was the chain lock.

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,

1984Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103 ; 297 NW2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32 ; 306 NW2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209 ; 306 NW2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich App 218 ; 310 NW2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich App 249 ; 317 NW2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich App 79 ; 318 *154 NW2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich App 692 ; 319 NW2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co,