public buildings exception in Michigan

1986In applying the public buildings exception to the present case, both the court and plaintiffs placed *827 considerable reliance on Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978).

1986In applying the public buildings exception to the present case, both the court and plaintiffs placed *827 considerable reliance on Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978).

2014In order to establish a prima facie case under the public buildings exception, a plaintiff must show 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 Michigan Dep’t of Transp, 478 Mich 490, 496 ; 734 NW2d 518 (2007).] At issue in this a

2014In order to establish a prima facie case under the public buildings exception, a plaintiff must show 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 Michigan Dep’t of Transp, 478 Mich 490, 496 ; 734 NW2d 518 (2007).] At issue in this a

1986In Vargo v Svitchan, 100 Mich App 809, 821 ; 301 NW2d 1 (1980), another panel of this Court, after surveying recent developments in the public building exception, summarized the factors governing the exception’s application as "whether the injury occurred in a 'public place’ and whether *828 that public place was fit for its assigned and intended use.” We agree that the public buildings exception, as interpreted by Pichette and subsequent cases, reflects a broad legislative intent to promote safe public places independent of the presence of a building, as that term has been traditionally defin

1986In Vargo v Svitchan, 100 Mich App 809, 821 ; 301 NW2d 1 (1980), another panel of this Court, after surveying recent developments in the public building exception, summarized the factors governing the exception’s application as "whether the injury occurred in a 'public place’ and whether *828 that public place was fit for its assigned and intended use.” We agree that the public buildings exception, as interpreted by Pichette and subsequent cases, reflects a broad legislative intent to promote safe public places independent of the presence of a building, as that term has been traditionally defin

2019See Green, 30 Mich App at 655 ; Velmer, 430 Mich at 396 . -7- The first prong of the proprietary function test has two relevant considerations.

2015In White v Detroit, 189 Mich App 526 ; 473 NW2d 702 (1991), this Court again considered the applicability of the public building exception to a city-owned residential housing facility.

2015In White v Detroit, 189 Mich App 526 ; 473 NW2d 702 (1991), this Court again considered the applicability of the public building exception to a city-owned residential housing facility.

2014In Horace v City of Pontiac, 456 Mich 744, 747 ; 575 NW2d 762 (1998), the plaintiff fell “while proceeding toward the south entrance of the Pontiac Silverdome on a descending walkway.” The plaintiff “had passed through a turnstile and was between eighteen and twenty eight feet from the south entrance.” Id.

2014In Horace v City of Pontiac, 456 Mich 744, 747 ; 575 NW2d 762 (1998), the plaintiff fell “while proceeding toward the south entrance of the Pontiac Silverdome on a descending walkway.” The plaintiff “had passed through a turnstile and was between eighteen and twenty eight feet from the south entrance.” Id.

2014MCL 691.1416(e), which defines the language used in MCL 691.1417 to MCL 691.1419, defines the word “defect” to mean “a construction, design, maintenance, operation, or repair defect.” 4 (Emphasis added.) For purposes of MCL 691.1416(e), this Court has determined that a “defect” means “ ‘a fault or shortcoming; imperfection.’ ” Willett, 271 Mich App at 51 , quoting Random House Webster’s College Dictionary (1997).

1991Specifically, the Court stated: "In applying the public buildings exception, the focus is on the accessibility of members of the general public to the situs of the accident . . . .” Id.

1989Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 430 Mich 139 ; 422 NW2d 205 (1988), did not produce a majority opinion and Reardon v Dep’t of Mental Health, 430 Mich 398 ; 424 NW2d 248 (1988), simply resolved a conflict in this Court on the question whether assaults by third parties in a public building fall within the public buildings exception to governmental immunity.

1989Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 430 Mich 139 ; 422 NW2d 205 (1988), did not produce a majority opinion and Reardon v Dep’t of Mental Health, 430 Mich 398 ; 424 NW2d 248 (1988), simply resolved a conflict in this Court on the question whether assaults by third parties in a public building fall within the public buildings exception to governmental immunity.

1989Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 430 Mich 139 ; 422 NW2d 205 (1988), did not produce a majority opinion and Reardon v Dep’t of Mental Health, 430 Mich 398 ; 424 NW2d 248 (1988), simply resolved a conflict in this Court on the question whether assaults by third parties in a public building fall within the public buildings exception to governmental immunity.

1989Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 430 Mich 139 ; 422 NW2d 205 (1988), did not produce a majority opinion and Reardon v Dep’t of Mental Health, 430 Mich 398 ; 424 NW2d 248 (1988), simply resolved a conflict in this Court on the question whether assaults by third parties in a public building fall within the public buildings exception to governmental immunity.

1989Dudek v Michigan, 152 Mich App 81, 85 ; 393 NW2d 572 (1986).

1989Dudek v Michigan, 152 Mich App 81, 85 ; 393 NW2d 572 (1986).

1987In Landry v Detroit, 143 Mich App 16 ; 371 NW2d 466 (1985), lv gtd 424 Mich 876 (1986), this Court rejected the plaintiffs claim based upon the public buildings exception where the plaintiff was assaulted by a criminal defendant outside the courtroom.

1987In Landry v Detroit, 143 Mich App 16 ; 371 NW2d 466 (1985), lv gtd 424 Mich 876 (1986), this Court rejected the plaintiffs claim based upon the public buildings exception where the plaintiff was assaulted by a criminal defendant outside the courtroom.

1978Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978), Tilford v Wayne County General Hospital, 403 Mich 293 ; 269 NW2d 153 (1978).

1978Pichette v Manistique Public Schools, 403 Mich 268 ; 269 NW2d 143 (1978), Tilford v Wayne County General Hospital, 403 Mich 293 ; 269 NW2d 153 (1978).