protection of governmental immunity in Michigan

2018The Michigan Supreme Court has been clear that in order to plead and prove a claim outside of the broad protection of governmental immunity with respect to an exception, a plaintiff must prove that they suffered “an injury caused by a defect . . . under traditional negligence principles.” Haliw v Sterling Hts, 464 Mich 297, 309 ; 627 NW2d 581 (2001).4 “To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must be able to prove four elements: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” Id. at 309-310 .

2018The Michigan Supreme Court has been clear that in order to plead and prove a claim outside of the broad protection of governmental immunity with respect to an exception, a plaintiff must prove that they suffered “an injury caused by a defect . . . under traditional negligence principles.” Haliw v Sterling Hts, 464 Mich 297, 309 ; 627 NW2d 581 (2001).4 “To establish a prima facie case of negligence, a plaintiff must be able to prove four elements: (1) a duty owed by the defendant to the plaintiff, (2) a breach of that duty, (3) causation, and (4) damages.” Id. at 309-310 .

2024See Vargo, 457 Mich at 71 (“[A]lthough the Legislature extended immunity to a large number of individuals for broad categories of conduct, there is no indication that the statute, when read in conjunction with its definitional sources, even remotely contemplates a grant of immunity for agents who are simultaneously serving a private entity.”); Rambus v Wayne Co Gen Hosp, 193 Mich App 268, 270-273 ; 483 NW2d 455 (1992), aff’d on reh, 197 Mich App 480 ; 495 NW2d 835 (1992) (declining “to extend the protection of governmental immunity to a private entity, or its agents and employees, merely becau

2024See Vargo, 457 Mich at 71 (“[A]lthough the Legislature extended immunity to a large number of individuals for broad categories of conduct, there is no indication that the statute, when read in conjunction with its definitional sources, even remotely contemplates a grant of immunity for agents who are simultaneously serving a private entity.”); Rambus v Wayne Co Gen Hosp, 193 Mich App 268, 270-273 ; 483 NW2d 455 (1992), aff’d on reh, 197 Mich App 480 ; 495 NW2d 835 (1992) (declining “to extend the protection of governmental immunity to a private entity, or its agents and employees, merely becau

2024See Vargo, 457 Mich at 71 (“[A]lthough the Legislature extended immunity to a large number of individuals for broad categories of conduct, there is no indication that the statute, when read in conjunction with its definitional sources, even remotely contemplates a grant of immunity for agents who are simultaneously serving a private entity.”); Rambus v Wayne Co Gen Hosp, 193 Mich App 268, 270-273 ; 483 NW2d 455 (1992), aff’d on reh, 197 Mich App 480 ; 495 NW2d 835 (1992) (declining “to extend the protection of governmental immunity to a private entity, or its agents and employees, merely becau

2024See Vargo, 457 Mich at 71 (“[A]lthough the Legislature extended immunity to a large number of individuals for broad categories of conduct, there is no indication that the statute, when read in conjunction with its definitional sources, even remotely contemplates a grant of immunity for agents who are simultaneously serving a private entity.”); Rambus v Wayne Co Gen Hosp, 193 Mich App 268, 270-273 ; 483 NW2d 455 (1992), aff’d on reh, 197 Mich App 480 ; 495 NW2d 835 (1992) (declining “to extend the protection of governmental immunity to a private entity, or its agents and employees, merely becau

2023Vargo v Sauer, 457 Mich 49, 68 ; 576 NW2d 656 (1998) (“[T]he definition of ‘governmental agency’ does not include, or remotely contemplate, joint ventures, partnerships, arrangements between governmental agencies and private entities, or any other combined state-private endeavors.”), (quotation marks and citation omitted); Jackson v New Ctr Community Mental Health Servs, 158 Mich App 25, 34 ; 404 NW2d 688 (1987) (“A private entity’s performance of a governmental function does not confer governmental agency status on that entity”); and Roberts v Pontiac, 176 Mich App 572, 578 ; 440 NW2d 55 (198

2023Vargo v Sauer, 457 Mich 49, 68 ; 576 NW2d 656 (1998) (“[T]he definition of ‘governmental agency’ does not include, or remotely contemplate, joint ventures, partnerships, arrangements between governmental agencies and private entities, or any other combined state-private endeavors.”), (quotation marks and citation omitted); Jackson v New Ctr Community Mental Health Servs, 158 Mich App 25, 34 ; 404 NW2d 688 (1987) (“A private entity’s performance of a governmental function does not confer governmental agency status on that entity”); and Roberts v Pontiac, 176 Mich App 572, 578 ; 440 NW2d 55 (198

2022Id. at 301 .

2012For negligent torts, the governmental employee is not entitled to the protection of governmental immunity if the “conduct amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate cause of the injury or damage.” Id. at 480 .

2007MacLachan v Capital Area Transportation Auth, 474 Mich 1059 (2006).

1996These defendants can claim the protection of governmental immunity from tort liability unless they were acting in so reckless a manner as to constitute “gross negligence.” Vermilya v Dunham, 195 Mich App 79, 82 ; 489 NW2d 496 (1992).

1996These defendants can claim the protection of governmental immunity from tort liability unless they were acting in so reckless a manner as to constitute “gross negligence.” Vermilya v Dunham, 195 Mich App 79, 82 ; 489 NW2d 496 (1992).

1996Id., 707-708 .

1988Hence, summary judgment as to defendant State of Michigan was appropriate, [de Sanchez v Genoves-Andrews, 161 Mich App 245, 261-262 ; 410 NW2d 803 (1987).] Similarly, plaintiffs claim in this case pursuant to § 722 of the Mental Health Code is not "appropriate civil relief’ against acmhs or Allegan County because it is based on the action or inaction of these defendants in allowing the alleged sexual abuse to occur and because, at the time of plaintiffs sexual abuse, acmhs and Allegan County were engaged in a governmental function, thereby entitling them to the protection of governmental immun

1988Hence, summary judgment as to defendant State of Michigan was appropriate, [de Sanchez v Genoves-Andrews, 161 Mich App 245, 261-262 ; 410 NW2d 803 (1987).] Similarly, plaintiffs claim in this case pursuant to § 722 of the Mental Health Code is not "appropriate civil relief’ against acmhs or Allegan County because it is based on the action or inaction of these defendants in allowing the alleged sexual abuse to occur and because, at the time of plaintiffs sexual abuse, acmhs and Allegan County were engaged in a governmental function, thereby entitling them to the protection of governmental immun

1987Shunk v State, 97 Mich App 626 ; 296 NW2d 129 (1980) [app den Shunk v Northwest Industries, 414 Mich 921 (1982); later app Shunk v Michigan (After Remand), 132 Mich App 632 ; 347 NW2d 767 (1984)]. [Winborne, ed, Civil Actions Against State Government: Its Divisions, Agencies and Officers (McGraw-Hill, 1982), § 2.41, p 91.] Moreover, Sands and Libonati, in their multivolume treatise on local government law, cite Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979), as support for the statement that certain jurisdictions exempt intentional torts from the protection of governmental immunity.

1987Shunk v State, 97 Mich App 626 ; 296 NW2d 129 (1980) [app den Shunk v Northwest Industries, 414 Mich 921 (1982); later app Shunk v Michigan (After Remand), 132 Mich App 632 ; 347 NW2d 767 (1984)]. [Winborne, ed, Civil Actions Against State Government: Its Divisions, Agencies and Officers (McGraw-Hill, 1982), § 2.41, p 91.] Moreover, Sands and Libonati, in their multivolume treatise on local government law, cite Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979), as support for the statement that certain jurisdictions exempt intentional torts from the protection of governmental immunity.

1987Shunk v State, 97 Mich App 626 ; 296 NW2d 129 (1980) [app den Shunk v Northwest Industries, 414 Mich 921 (1982); later app Shunk v Michigan (After Remand), 132 Mich App 632 ; 347 NW2d 767 (1984)]. [Winborne, ed, Civil Actions Against State Government: Its Divisions, Agencies and Officers (McGraw-Hill, 1982), § 2.41, p 91.] Moreover, Sands and Libonati, in their multivolume treatise on local government law, cite Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979), as support for the statement that certain jurisdictions exempt intentional torts from the protection of governmental immunity.

1987Shunk v State, 97 Mich App 626 ; 296 NW2d 129 (1980) [app den Shunk v Northwest Industries, 414 Mich 921 (1982); later app Shunk v Michigan (After Remand), 132 Mich App 632 ; 347 NW2d 767 (1984)]. [Winborne, ed, Civil Actions Against State Government: Its Divisions, Agencies and Officers (McGraw-Hill, 1982), § 2.41, p 91.] Moreover, Sands and Libonati, in their multivolume treatise on local government law, cite Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979), as support for the statement that certain jurisdictions exempt intentional torts from the protection of governmental immunity.

1987Shunk v State, 97 Mich App 626 ; 296 NW2d 129 (1980) [app den Shunk v Northwest Industries, 414 Mich 921 (1982); later app Shunk v Michigan (After Remand), 132 Mich App 632 ; 347 NW2d 767 (1984)]. [Winborne, ed, Civil Actions Against State Government: Its Divisions, Agencies and Officers (McGraw-Hill, 1982), § 2.41, p 91.] Moreover, Sands and Libonati, in their multivolume treatise on local government law, cite Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979), as support for the statement that certain jurisdictions exempt intentional torts from the protection of governmental immunity.

1987Shunk v State, 97 Mich App 626 ; 296 NW2d 129 (1980) [app den Shunk v Northwest Industries, 414 Mich 921 (1982); later app Shunk v Michigan (After Remand), 132 Mich App 632 ; 347 NW2d 767 (1984)]. [Winborne, ed, Civil Actions Against State Government: Its Divisions, Agencies and Officers (McGraw-Hill, 1982), § 2.41, p 91.] Moreover, Sands and Libonati, in their multivolume treatise on local government law, cite Lockaby v Wayne Co, 406 Mich 65 ; 276 NW2d 1 (1979), as support for the statement that certain jurisdictions exempt intentional torts from the protection of governmental immunity.

1983See Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692, 699 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Shwary v Cranetrol Corp, 119 Mich App 736 ; 326 NW2d 627 (1982).

1983See Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692, 699 ; 314 NW2d 728 (1981); Shwary v Cranetrol Corp, 119 Mich App 736 ; 326 NW2d 627 (1982).

1976Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 602 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975).

1976Lovitt v Concord School District, 58 Mich App 593, 602 ; 228 NW2d 479 (1975).