public building exception in Michigan

2022See MCL 691.1401(a), (d), and (e). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -3- processing of applications for a license.

2021While we concur with plaintiffs’ broad statement, the individual 4 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -5- council members are not parties to this lawsuit.

2022See MCL 691.1401(a), (d), and (e). 3 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -3- processing of applications for a license.

2021While we concur with plaintiffs’ broad statement, the individual 4 “The six statutory exceptions are: the highway exception, MCL 619.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary- function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).” Wesche v Mecosta Co Rd Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008). -5- council members are not parties to this lawsuit.

1998For example, in Tilford v Wayne Co General Hosp, 403 Mich 293 ; 269 NW2d 153 (1978), this Court held that a slip and fall on a patch of ice on the walk leading to the entrance to the hospital came within the public building exception.

1998For example, in Tilford v Wayne Co General Hosp, 403 Mich 293 ; 269 NW2d 153 (1978), this Court held that a slip and fall on a patch of ice on the walk leading to the entrance to the hospital came within the public building exception.

2020Subsequently, in Tellin, 291 Mich App at 705-706 , we clarified that “[a] design defect would appear to consist of a dangerous condition inherent in the design itself, such as its characteristics, functioning, and purpose,” and that “[a]n action could initially be a design decision, but subsequent improper installation, malfunction, deterioration, or instability could later transform this decision into a failure to repair or maintain.” It is our view that the purportedly defective condition at issue in this case arises solely from an allegedly faulty design or construction and, as a result, ca

2019“The public-building exception excludes claims of design defects.[7] Therefore, to avoid governmental immunity, a plaintiff must assert a claim that the defective condition was the result of a failure to repair or maintain.” Id. at 700 .

2008The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's denial of the city's motion for summary disposition with regard to the second complaint on the basis that "plaintiffs came forward with insufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the alleged defect in the city's sidewalk proximately caused the accident at issue." Id. [12] Ostroth v. Warren Regency GP, LLC, 474 Mich. 36, 40 , 709 N.W.2d 589 (2006). [13] Cowles v. Bank West, 476 Mich. 1, 13 , 719 N.W.2d 94 (2006). [14] MCL 691.1401 et seq. [15] Ross v. Consumers Power Co. (On Rehearing), 420 Mich. 567, 595 , 363

2008The Court of Appeals reversed the circuit court's denial of the city's motion for summary disposition with regard to the second complaint on the basis that "plaintiffs came forward with insufficient evidence to establish a genuine issue of fact regarding whether the alleged defect in the city's sidewalk proximately caused the accident at issue." Id. [12] Ostroth v. Warren Regency GP, LLC, 474 Mich. 36, 40 , 709 N.W.2d 589 (2006). [13] Cowles v. Bank West, 476 Mich. 1, 13 , 719 N.W.2d 94 (2006). [14] MCL 691.1401 et seq. [15] Ross v. Consumers Power Co. (On Rehearing), 420 Mich. 567, 595 , 363

1998Johns Public Schools, 189 Mich. App. 466, 467 , 473 N.W.2d 745 (1991) (the plaintiff was injured on a playground when a basketball hoop fell; the Court of Appeals affirmed an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim, stating it was convinced that the public building exception no longer applies to dangers presented on school property adjacent to a public school). [4] The apparent incongruity between these two statements led the Court of Appeals in Yarrick v. Village of Kent City, 180 Mich.App. 410, 414 , 447 N.W.2d 803 (1989), vacated and remanded for reconsideration regarding a different issue 4

1998Johns Public Schools, 189 Mich. App. 466, 467 , 473 N.W.2d 745 (1991) (the plaintiff was injured on a playground when a basketball hoop fell; the Court of Appeals affirmed an order dismissing the plaintiff's claim, stating it was convinced that the public building exception no longer applies to dangers presented on school property adjacent to a public school). [4] The apparent incongruity between these two statements led the Court of Appeals in Yarrick v. Village of Kent City, 180 Mich.App. 410, 414 , 447 N.W.2d 803 (1989), vacated and remanded for reconsideration regarding a different issue 4

2006Defendant, as a department of the state, is protected by the provisions of this act. [15] MCL 691.1407(1). [16] The Legislature codified the following exceptions: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage disposal system exception, MCL 691.1417. [17] MCL 691.1402(1) (emphasis added). [18] MCL 691.1401(e). [19] Id. [20] 463 Mich. 143 , 615 N.W.2d 702 (2000). [21] In Nawrocki, this Court decided t

2006Defendant, as a department of the state, is protected by the provisions of this act. [15] MCL 691.1407(1). [16] The Legislature codified the following exceptions: the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage disposal system exception, MCL 691.1417. [17] MCL 691.1402(1) (emphasis added). [18] MCL 691.1401(e). [19] Id. [20] 463 Mich. 143 , 615 N.W.2d 702 (2000). [21] In Nawrocki, this Court decided t

1997Id. at 306-308 . 2 Cf. Williamson v Dep’t of Mental Health, 176 Mich App 752, 759-760 ; 440 NW2d 97 (1989), where this Court found that the public building exception applied regarding a mental health inpatient shower facility “in light of the use for which the shower and bathing facilities was specifically assigned; that is, the bathing and showering place for a known epileptic and mildly retarded patient subject to convulsions which occured [sic] without warning whom the staff was well aware was at risk for drowning if subject to a seizure while taking a bath.” The institution’s water flow sy

1997Id. at 306-308 . 2 Cf. Williamson v Dep’t of Mental Health, 176 Mich App 752, 759-760 ; 440 NW2d 97 (1989), where this Court found that the public building exception applied regarding a mental health inpatient shower facility “in light of the use for which the shower and bathing facilities was specifically assigned; that is, the bathing and showering place for a known epileptic and mildly retarded patient subject to convulsions which occured [sic] without warning whom the staff was well aware was at risk for drowning if subject to a seizure while taking a bath.” The institution’s water flow sy

2017Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014).

2015“The six statutory exceptions to governmental immunity [are]: ‘the highway exception, MCL 691.1402; the motor-vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405; the public-building exception, MCL 691.1406; the proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and the sewage-disposal-system-event exception, MCL 691.1417(2) and (3).’ ” Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014), quoting Wesche v Mecosta Co Road Comm, 480 Mich 75 , 84 n 10; 746 NW2d 847 (2008).

2015For the public building exception to apply, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) a governmental agency is involved, (2) the public building in question is open for use by members of the public, (3) a dangerous or defective condition of the public building itself exists, (4) the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect, and (5) the governmental agency failed to remedy the alleged defective condition after a reasonable amount of time. [Renny v Dep’t of Transp, 478 Mich 490, 495-496 ; 734 NW2d 518 (2007).] Here, the evidence does not support that the stairs leadi

2015For the public building exception to apply, a plaintiff must prove that: (1) a governmental agency is involved, (2) the public building in question is open for use by members of the public, (3) a dangerous or defective condition of the public building itself exists, (4) the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect, and (5) the governmental agency failed to remedy the alleged defective condition after a reasonable amount of time. [Renny v Dep’t of Transp, 478 Mich 490, 495-496 ; 734 NW2d 518 (2007).] Here, the evidence does not support that the stairs leadi

2001The dissent offers no analysis of the text of the public building exception to support its view that inmates are “members of the public.” Instead, the dissent relies on the “logic” in Green, supra, and dicta from other cases.

2001Accordingly, I agree with the plurality opinion’s conclusion that a jail inmate is not a member of the public within the meaning of the public building exception, and thus I concur with the plurality opinion’s overruling of that part of Green v Dep’t of Corrections, 386 Mich 459 ; 192 NW2d 491 (1971), which held that inmates are members of the public community whether in or out of jail. 5 B.

2001Cf. Wade v. Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich. 158 , 483 N.W.2d 26 (1992). [2] They include: the highway exception, M.C.L. § 691.1402; the motor vehicle exception, M.C.L. § 691.1405; the public building exception, M.C.L. § 691.1406; the proprietary function exception, M.C.L. § 691.1413; and the governmental hospital exception, M.C.L. § 691.1407(4). [3] Examples of publicly owned buildings that are not open for use by members of the public include: a city-owned apartment used as a private residence, Griffin v. Detroit, 178 Mich.App. 302 , 443 N.W.2d 406 (1989); a publicly owned building that is cl

2001Cf. Wade v. Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich. 158 , 483 N.W.2d 26 (1992). [2] They include: the highway exception, M.C.L. § 691.1402; the motor vehicle exception, M.C.L. § 691.1405; the public building exception, M.C.L. § 691.1406; the proprietary function exception, M.C.L. § 691.1413; and the governmental hospital exception, M.C.L. § 691.1407(4). [3] Examples of publicly owned buildings that are not open for use by members of the public include: a city-owned apartment used as a private residence, Griffin v. Detroit, 178 Mich.App. 302 , 443 N.W.2d 406 (1989); a publicly owned building that is cl

1998See, e.g., Abrams v Schoolcraft Community College, 178 Mich App 668, 671 ; 444 NW2d 533 (1989) (the plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot; the Court of Appeals affirmed an order granting summary disposition to the defendant stating, “it does not appear that the parking lot was ‘immediately adjacent’ to the school building so as to possibly fall within the public building exception”), Richardson v Warren Consolidated School Dist, 197 Mich App 697, 700-701 ; 496 NW2d 380 (1992) (the plaintiff was injured when her bicycle struck a concrete island at the edge of a circular drive in front of

1998See, e.g., Abrams v Schoolcraft Community College, 178 Mich App 668, 671 ; 444 NW2d 533 (1989) (the plaintiff slipped and fell in a parking lot; the Court of Appeals affirmed an order granting summary disposition to the defendant stating, “it does not appear that the parking lot was ‘immediately adjacent’ to the school building so as to possibly fall within the public building exception”), Richardson v Warren Consolidated School Dist, 197 Mich App 697, 700-701 ; 496 NW2d 380 (1992) (the plaintiff was injured when her bicycle struck a concrete island at the edge of a circular drive in front of

1989As long as the danger of injury is presented by a physical condition of the building, it little matters that the condition arose because of improper design, faulty construction, or absence of safety devices. [Reardon, supra, pp 409-410 .] This legislative purpose to maintain safe public places was later echoed in Bush, supra at 731-732 (public building exception applicable where claimed defect is absence of safety features), and Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65, 76-77 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979) (building exception applicable where plaintiff alleged lack of padding in cell where he was being held). [Id

1989As long as the danger of injury is presented by a physical condition of the building, it little matters that the condition arose because of improper design, faulty construction, or absence of safety devices. [Reardon, supra, pp 409-410 .] This legislative purpose to maintain safe public places was later echoed in Bush, supra at 731-732 (public building exception applicable where claimed defect is absence of safety features), and Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65, 76-77 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979) (building exception applicable where plaintiff alleged lack of padding in cell where he was being held). [Id

1992See Merritt v Dep’t of Social Services, 184 Mich App 522, 523 ; 459 NW2d 10 (1989) (an accumulation of ice on a parking lot maintained by the defendant was not within the public building exception; the scope of the exception was narrowed since Tilford); Dew v Livonia, 180 Mich App 676, 679 ; 447 NW2d 764 (1989) (the intent of the Legislature was to apply the public building exception to " dangers actually presented by the building itself,’ and not to all injuries incurred inside or adjacent to a public building”); Wing v Detroit, 178 Mich App 628, 631 ; 444 NW2d 539 (1989) (the plaintiff’s cla

1992See Merritt v Dep’t of Social Services, 184 Mich App 522, 523 ; 459 NW2d 10 (1989) (an accumulation of ice on a parking lot maintained by the defendant was not within the public building exception; the scope of the exception was narrowed since Tilford); Dew v Livonia, 180 Mich App 676, 679 ; 447 NW2d 764 (1989) (the intent of the Legislature was to apply the public building exception to " dangers actually presented by the building itself,’ and not to all injuries incurred inside or adjacent to a public building”); Wing v Detroit, 178 Mich App 628, 631 ; 444 NW2d 539 (1989) (the plaintiff’s cla

1989In fact, the Reardon Court noted that the Legislature intended that the public building exception apply to facts similar to those of Williams v Detroit, 364 Mich 231 ; 111 NW2d 1 (1961), the case which precipitated the Legislature’s enacting the governmental immunity act.

1989In fact, the Reardon Court noted that the Legislature intended that the public building exception apply to facts similar to those of Williams v Detroit, 364 Mich 231 ; 111 NW2d 1 (1961), the case which precipitated the Legislature’s enacting the governmental immunity act.