proprietary function 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.

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

2021The proprietary function exception “does not penalize a governmental agency’s legitimate desire to conduct an activity on a self-sustaining basis.” Hyde, 426 Mich at 259 .

1989Hyde, supra. An agency may conduct an activity on a self-sustaining basis without being subject to the proprietary function exception.

2022Ward v Mich State Univ (On Remand), 287 Mich App 76, 84 ; 782 NW2d 514 (2010).

2022Ward v Mich State Univ (On Remand), 287 Mich App 76, 84 ; 782 NW2d 514 (2010).

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

2022“The statutory exceptions contained in the [Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA)] are: (1) the highway exception, MCL 691.1402, (2) the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405, (3) the public building exception, MCL 691.1406, (4) the governmental hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4), (5) the proprietary function exception, MCL 691.1413, and (6) the sewage system event exception, MCL 691.1417.” In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 , 378 n 21; 835 NW2d 545 (2013).

2022“The statutory exceptions contained in the [Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA)] are: (1) the highway exception, MCL 691.1402, (2) the motor vehicle exception, MCL 691.1405, (3) the public building exception, MCL 691.1406, (4) the governmental hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4), (5) the proprietary function exception, MCL 691.1413, and (6) the sewage system event exception, MCL 691.1417.” In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 , 378 n 21; 835 NW2d 545 (2013).

2022“Generally, a motion for summary disposition is premature if granted before discovery on a disputed issue is complete,” but “summary disposition may nevertheless be appropriate if further discovery does not stand a reasonable chance of uncovering factual support for the opposing party’s position.” Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 24-25 , 672 NW2d 351 (2003).

2022“Generally, a motion for summary disposition is premature if granted before discovery on a disputed issue is complete,” but “summary disposition may nevertheless be appropriate if further discovery does not stand a reasonable chance of uncovering factual support for the opposing party’s position.” Peterson Novelties, Inc v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1, 24-25 , 672 NW2d 351 (2003).

2022At that early stage of the litigation, plaintiff still had the right to amend her complaint, as a matter of course, under MCR 2.118(A)(1), which permits a party to “amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 14 days after being served with a responsive pleading by an adverse party.” Because defendants’ motion for summary disposition did not constitute a responsive pleading, see MCR 2.110(A); Huntington Woods v Ajax Paving Indus, Inc, 179 Mich App 600, 601 ; 446 NW2d 331 (1989), plaintiff’s right to amend her complaint has not expired.

2022At that early stage of the litigation, plaintiff still had the right to amend her complaint, as a matter of course, under MCR 2.118(A)(1), which permits a party to “amend a pleading once as a matter of course within 14 days after being served with a responsive pleading by an adverse party.” Because defendants’ motion for summary disposition did not constitute a responsive pleading, see MCR 2.110(A); Huntington Woods v Ajax Paving Indus, Inc, 179 Mich App 600, 601 ; 446 NW2d 331 (1989), plaintiff’s right to amend her complaint has not expired.

2020I would reverse and remand the matter for plaintiffs to proceed to trial on their negligence claim under the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity. /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens 3 In Coleman, the city “generated a substantial profit, ultimately exceeding 7 million dollars” over eight years’ time. 456 Mich at 622 . 4 Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004). 5 Taylor v Detroit, 182 Mich App 583 ; 452 NW2d 826 (1989). -2-

2020I would reverse and remand the matter for plaintiffs to proceed to trial on their negligence claim under the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity. /s/ Cynthia Diane Stephens 3 In Coleman, the city “generated a substantial profit, ultimately exceeding 7 million dollars” over eight years’ time. 456 Mich at 622 . 4 Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004). 5 Taylor v Detroit, 182 Mich App 583 ; 452 NW2d 826 (1989). -2-

2018I do not believe that this approach is consistent with the text of the statute.2 The majority relies on Laurence G Wolf Capital Trust v City of Ferndale, 269 Mich App 265 ; 713 NW2d 274 (2005), which concerned the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1413.3 In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, through their land use decisions, id. at 267 , “tortuously interfered with their established and prospective business relationships . . . .” Id. at 273 .

2018I do not believe that this approach is consistent with the text of the statute.2 The majority relies on Laurence G Wolf Capital Trust v City of Ferndale, 269 Mich App 265 ; 713 NW2d 274 (2005), which concerned the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1413.3 In that case, the plaintiffs alleged that the defendants, through their land use decisions, id. at 267 , “tortuously interfered with their established and prospective business relationships . . . .” Id. at 273 .

1997Id. at 98 , 494 N.W.2d 791 . [2] Here, plaintiff argues that there are sufficient facts for the jury to determine whether the university's athletics program was a proprietary function.

1997Id. at 98 . 2 Here, plaintiff argues that there are sufficient facts for the jury to determine whether the university’s athletics program was a proprietary function.

2022This supports the City’s argument that the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity does not apply. -5- permits a party to amend a pleading by leave of court, which should be “freely given when justice so requires.” A party’s motion to amend should only be denied for certain, particularized reasons, including: [1] undue delay, [2] bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, [3] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, [4] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and 5] futility. . . . [Weymers v Kh

2022This supports the City’s argument that the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity does not apply. -5- permits a party to amend a pleading by leave of court, which should be “freely given when justice so requires.” A party’s motion to amend should only be denied for certain, particularized reasons, including: [1] undue delay, [2] bad faith or dilatory motive on the part of the movant, [3] repeated failure to cure deficiencies by amendments previously allowed, [4] undue prejudice to the opposing party by virtue of allowance of the amendment, [and 5] futility. . . . [Weymers v Kh

2022Lash, 479 Mich at 195 n 33.

2020This Court used the same approach in Goodhue v Dept of Transp, 319 Mich App 526 , 531-534; 904 NW2d 203 (2017), Transou v City of Pontiac, 283 Mich App 71, 73-75 ; 769 NW2d 281 (2009), and Ward v Michigan State Univ (On Remand), 287 Mich App 76, 85-86 ; 782 NW2d 514 (2010).

2020This Court used the same approach in Goodhue v Dept of Transp, 319 Mich App 526 , 531-534; 904 NW2d 203 (2017), Transou v City of Pontiac, 283 Mich App 71, 73-75 ; 769 NW2d 281 (2009), and Ward v Michigan State Univ (On Remand), 287 Mich App 76, 85-86 ; 782 NW2d 514 (2010).

2019“A trial court’s ruling may be upheld on appeal where the right result issued, albeit for the wrong reason.” Gleason v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 256 Mich App 1, 3 ; 662 NW2d 822 (2003).

2019“A trial court’s ruling may be upheld on appeal where the right result issued, albeit for the wrong reason.” Gleason v Mich Dep’t of Transp, 256 Mich App 1, 3 ; 662 NW2d 822 (2003).

2019Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.” And the GTLA defines “governmental agency” as “this state or a political subdivision.” MCL 691.1401(a). 3 “The six statutory exceptions 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 exc

2019Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.” And the GTLA defines “governmental agency” as “this state or a political subdivision.” MCL 691.1401(a). 3 “The six statutory exceptions 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 exc

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.

2018Defendant’s reliance on Monfils v Sterling Heights, 84 Mich App 330 ; 269 NW2d 588 (1978), is misplaced.

2018Defendant’s reliance on Monfils v Sterling Heights, 84 Mich App 330 ; 269 NW2d 588 (1978), is misplaced.

2018“Thus, to invoke the highway 1 “The six statutory exceptions 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).” Wesche, 480 Mich at 84 n 10. -2- exception as it pertains to sidewalks, a plaintiff must show that the defect existed at least 30 days before the accident.” Bernardoni v Saginaw, 499 Mich 470, 474 ; 886 NW2d 109 (2016).

2018“Thus, to invoke the highway 1 “The six statutory exceptions 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).” Wesche, 480 Mich at 84 n 10. -2- exception as it pertains to sidewalks, a plaintiff must show that the defect existed at least 30 days before the accident.” Bernardoni v Saginaw, 499 Mich 470, 474 ; 886 NW2d 109 (2016).

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).