exception to governmental immunity in Michigan

2024“In order to survive a motion for summary disposition, the plaintiff must . . . allege facts justifying application of an exception to governmental immunity.” Wade, 439 Mich at 163 .

2020To avoid summary disposition, the plaintiff must “allege facts justifying application of an exception to governmental immunity.” Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 163 ; 483 NW2d 26 (1992).

2024“In order to assert a viable claim against a governmental agency, a plaintiff must plead facts establishing that an exception to governmental immunity applies to his or her claim.” Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 420 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018).

2024“In order to assert a viable claim against a governmental agency, a plaintiff must plead facts establishing that an exception to governmental immunity applies to his or her claim.” Wood v Detroit, 323 Mich App 416, 420 ; 917 NW2d 709 (2018).

1992In the last appearance of these consolidated cases in this Court, Li v Feldt (After Remand), 434 Mich 584, 592 ; 456 NW2d 55 (1990), this Court declared that the statute immunizing governmental agencies from tort liability 1 "preserved judicially created exceptions to immunity which were formulated before July 1, 1965 ” 2 The lead opinion proceeds on that premise, but concludes that public nuisance is not an exception to governmental immunity.

1992In the last appearance of these consolidated cases in this Court, Li v Feldt (After Remand), 434 Mich 584, 592 ; 456 NW2d 55 (1990), this Court declared that the statute immunizing governmental agencies from tort liability 1 "preserved judicially created exceptions to immunity which were formulated before July 1, 1965 ” 2 The lead opinion proceeds on that premise, but concludes that public nuisance is not an exception to governmental immunity.

2002Terry v Detroit, 226 Mich App 418, 428 ; 573 NW2d 348 (1997); Hunley v Phillips, 164 Mich App 517, 524 ; 417 NW2d 485 (1987).

2002Terry v Detroit, 226 Mich App 418, 428 ; 573 NW2d 348 (1997); Hunley v Phillips, 164 Mich App 517, 524 ; 417 NW2d 485 (1987).

1994We are aware that in Rosario v Lansing, 403 Mich 124, 139-141 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978) (Fitzgerald, J), a plurality of the Court held that, although attractive nuisance law is essentially negligence law, attractive nuisance is an exception to governmental immunity.

1994We are aware that in Rosario v Lansing, 403 Mich 124, 139-141 ; 268 NW2d 230 (1978) (Fitzgerald, J), a plurality of the Court held that, although attractive nuisance law is essentially negligence law, attractive nuisance is an exception to governmental immunity.

2026“To survive a motion for summary disposition based on governmental immunity, the plaintiff must allege facts giving rise to an exception to governmental immunity.” Id.

2003We believe that the allegations in both complaints were sufficient to give rise to an exception to governmental immunity pursuant to M.C.L. § 691.1405. [ Id. at 163, 641 N.W.2d 285 .] Against this backdrop, we now review the cases cited by our Supreme Court pursuant to which we are to reconsider our previous ruling.

2018MOTOR VEHICLE EXCEPTION "As a general rule, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability when it is 'engaged in the *420 exercise or discharge of a governmental function.' " Poppen v. Tovey , 256 Mich.App. 351 , 354, 664 N.W.2d 269 (2003), quoting MCL 691.1407(1). 1 In order to assert a viable claim against a governmental agency, a plaintiff must plead facts establishing that an exception to governmental immunity applies to his or her claim.

2018MOTOR VEHICLE EXCEPTION "As a general rule, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability when it is 'engaged in the *420 exercise or discharge of a governmental function.' " Poppen v. Tovey , 256 Mich.App. 351 , 354, 664 N.W.2d 269 (2003), quoting MCL 691.1407(1). 1 In order to assert a viable claim against a governmental agency, a plaintiff must plead facts establishing that an exception to governmental immunity applies to his or her claim.

2015Id. at 431-432 ; Linton, 273 Mich App at 112 .

2015Id.

2014“MCL 691.1417(2) provides an exception to governmental immunity for sewage disposal system events . . . .” Linton v Arenac Co Rd Comm, 273 Mich App 107, 114 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006).

2014“MCL 691.1417(2) provides an exception to governmental immunity for sewage disposal system events . . . .” Linton v Arenac Co Rd Comm, 273 Mich App 107, 114 ; 729 NW2d 883 (2006).

1998Id.

1997The situs of plaintiff’s accident was not an area open to the public within a public building, Jackson, supra; Steele, supra; Griffin, supra, so defendant was entitled to judgment as a matter of law because plaintiff failed to establish an exception to governmental immunity.

1996Assuming, arguendo, that there is an exception to governmental immunity for a workplace injury as a result of a governmental employer's intentional tort, the facts of this case do not constitute such an intentional tort as a matter of law. [Prior report: 208 Mich.App. 356 , 527 N.W.2d 71 .] RILEY and WEAVER, JJ., join in the order but do not believe there is an intentional tort exception to governmental immunity.

1996Assuming, arguendo, that there is an exception to governmental immunity for a workplace injury as a result of a governmental employer's intentional tort, the facts of this case do not constitute such an intentional tort as a matter of law. [Prior report: 208 Mich.App. 356 , 527 N.W.2d 71 .] RILEY and WEAVER, JJ., join in the order but do not believe there is an intentional tort exception to governmental immunity.

1986Presently, with the adoption of comparative negligence, this distinction retains importance since in Melendres v Soales, supra, p 84, the Court held that comparative negligence would be inapplicable to actions based on intentional nuisances in fact. 4 In cases involving governmental immunity the distinction between intentional and negligently caused nuisances in fact is also critical since, based on the opinions in Rosario, supra, and Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), rehearing denied 403 Mich 956 (1978), this Court has consistently held that there is an e

1986Presently, with the adoption of comparative negligence, this distinction retains importance since in Melendres v Soales, supra, p 84, the Court held that comparative negligence would be inapplicable to actions based on intentional nuisances in fact. 4 In cases involving governmental immunity the distinction between intentional and negligently caused nuisances in fact is also critical since, based on the opinions in Rosario, supra, and Gerzeski v Dep’t of State Highways, 403 Mich 149 ; 268 NW2d 525 (1978), rehearing denied 403 Mich 956 (1978), this Court has consistently held that there is an e

1988Recently, in Smith v Dep’t of Public Health, 428 Mich 540 ; 410 NW2d 749 (1987), the Court held that an intentional tort *167 is not per se an exception to governmental immunity.

1988However, if the analysis were that simple, then the Supreme Court would have long ago disposed of the intentional nuisance cases currently pending before it, particularly Veeneman v Michigan, 143 Mich App 694 ; 373 NW2d 193 (1985), lv gtd 424 Mich 876 (1986), on the authority of Smith, supra. Since Veeneman has not been summarily disposed of, we can only assume that the Supreme Court has something to say on the subject of the continuing viability of intentional nuisance as an exception to governmental immunity.

1983In granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial judge ruled that an action for contribution did not come within the exception to governmental immunity stated in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102). 1 He relied on this Court’s opinions in Sziber v Stout, 111 Mich App 450 ; 315 NW2d 166 (1981), lv gtd 414 Mich 864 (1982), and Genesee County Road Comm v State Highway Comm, 86 Mich App 294 ; 272 NW2d 632 (1978).

1983In granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial judge ruled that an action for contribution did not come within the exception to governmental immunity stated in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102). 1 He relied on this Court’s opinions in Sziber v Stout, 111 Mich App 450 ; 315 NW2d 166 (1981), lv gtd 414 Mich 864 (1982), and Genesee County Road Comm v State Highway Comm, 86 Mich App 294 ; 272 NW2d 632 (1978).

1983The conclusion that contribution under this statutory provision is allowed was reached in May v Wolverine Tractor & Equipment Co, 107 Mich App 163 ; 309 NW2d 594 (1981).

1983The conclusion that contribution under this statutory provision is allowed was reached in May v Wolverine Tractor & Equipment Co, 107 Mich App 163 ; 309 NW2d 594 (1981).

1983In granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial judge ruled that an action for contribution did not come within the exception to governmental immunity stated in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102). 1 He relied on this Court’s opinions in Sziber v Stout, 111 Mich App 450 ; 315 NW2d 166 (1981), lv gtd 414 Mich 864 (1982), and Genesee County Road Comm v State Highway Comm, 86 Mich App 294 ; 272 NW2d 632 (1978).

1983In granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment, the trial judge ruled that an action for contribution did not come within the exception to governmental immunity stated in MCL 691.1402; MSA 3.996(102). 1 He relied on this Court’s opinions in Sziber v Stout, 111 Mich App 450 ; 315 NW2d 166 (1981), lv gtd 414 Mich 864 (1982), and Genesee County Road Comm v State Highway Comm, 86 Mich App 294 ; 272 NW2d 632 (1978).

2025McGoldrick v Holiday Amusements, Inc, 242 Mich App 286, 289-290 ; 618 NW2d 98 (2000).

2025McGoldrick v Holiday Amusements, Inc, 242 Mich App 286, 289-290 ; 618 NW2d 98 (2000).

2024Our Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, subsequently reversed this Court’s decision in Madison in a peremptory order that stated, “[a]ssuming, arguendo, that there is an exception to governmental immunity for a workplace injury as a result of a governmental employer’s intentional tort, the facts of this case do not constitute such an intentional tort as a matter of law.” Madison v City of Detroit, 450 Mich 976 (1996).

2024Defendant replied to plaintiff’s response to its motion for summary disposition, arguing that (1) plaintiff’s complaint “failed to state a legally viable cause of action by failing to allege facts giving rise to an exception to governmental immunity;” (2) plaintiff cannot establish that defendant’s firetruck was being “operated,” i.e., driven, at the time of the accident as explained in Chandler v Muskegon Co, 467 Mich 315, 320-322 ; 652 NW2d 224 (2002); and (3) plaintiff cannot establish that his decedent’s injuries resulted from any negligent operation of the firetruck as required under MCL

2024Defendant replied to plaintiff’s response to its motion for summary disposition, arguing that (1) plaintiff’s complaint “failed to state a legally viable cause of action by failing to allege facts giving rise to an exception to governmental immunity;” (2) plaintiff cannot establish that defendant’s firetruck was being “operated,” i.e., driven, at the time of the accident as explained in Chandler v Muskegon Co, 467 Mich 315, 320-322 ; 652 NW2d 224 (2002); and (3) plaintiff cannot establish that his decedent’s injuries resulted from any negligent operation of the firetruck as required under MCL

2024MCR 2.116(C)(10) provides that the trial court may grant summary disposition in favor of the moving party when “[e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.” “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003).

2024MCR 2.116(C)(10) provides that the trial court may grant summary disposition in favor of the moving party when “[e]xcept as to the amount of damages, there is no genuine issue as to any material fact, and the moving party is entitled to judgment or partial judgment as a matter of law.” “A genuine issue of material fact exists when the record, giving the benefit of reasonable doubt to the opposing party, leaves open an issue upon which reasonable minds might differ.” West v Gen Motors Corp, 469 Mich 177, 183 ; 665 NW2d 468 (2003).