basis of governmental immunity in Michigan

2022Although plaintiff argues that Breen and Keesler were acting in bad faith or with malice, given that Breen and Keesler submitted evidence demonstrating that the permit applications were denied or revoked for failure to comply with various requirements of Mich Admin Code, R 380.116, and plaintiff’s failure to refute that evidence, plaintiff failed to establish a question of fact whether Breen and Keesler acted in bad faith or with malice. 1 Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). -8- Accordingly, the trial court properly determined that Breen and Keesler we

2022Although plaintiff argues that Breen and Keesler were acting in bad faith or with malice, given that Breen and Keesler submitted evidence demonstrating that the permit applications were denied or revoked for failure to comply with various requirements of Mich Admin Code, R 380.116, and plaintiff’s failure to refute that evidence, plaintiff failed to establish a question of fact whether Breen and Keesler acted in bad faith or with malice. 1 Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). -8- Accordingly, the trial court properly determined that Breen and Keesler we

2017“A plaintiff filing suit against a governmental agency must initially plead his claims in avoidance of governmental immunity.” Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 466 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008).1 Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate when an action is barred on the basis of governmental immunity.

2017“A plaintiff filing suit against a governmental agency must initially plead his claims in avoidance of governmental immunity.” Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459, 466 ; 760 NW2d 217 (2008).1 Summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) is appropriate when an action is barred on the basis of governmental immunity.

2022In Dean II, 474 Mich at 914 , our Supreme Court reversed this Court’s opinion in Dean I affirming the denial of summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity, and adopted the reasoning of Judge GRIFFIN’s dissent, which concluded that the defendant was immune from tort liability under the GTLA because “the most immediate, efficient and direct cause” of the children’s deaths “was the fire itself, not defendant’s alleged gross negligence in fighting it.” Dean I, 262 Mich App at 61 (GRIFFIN, J., dissenting in part) (cleaned up).

2021In Dean II, 474 Mich at 914 , our Supreme Court reversed this Court’s opinion in Dean I affirming the denial of summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity, and adopted the reasoning of Judge GRIFFIN’s dissent, which concluded that the defendant was immune from tort liability under the GTLA because “the most immediate, efficient 5 Dean II, 474 Mich at 914 , was a preemptory order by our Supreme Court that reversed this Court’s ruling in Dean I, 262 Mich App at 48 .

2019Yono v. Dep't of Transp , 499 Mich. 636 , 645, 885 N.W.2d 445 (2016).

2019Yono v. Dep't of Transp , 499 Mich. 636 , 645, 885 N.W.2d 445 (2016).

2017Because conducting the record check was statutorily required, these entities were clearly engaged in a governmental function, Harrison, 194 Mich App at 450 , entitling them to dismissal of plaintiff’s claims on the basis of governmental immunity.

2017Because conducting the record check was statutorily required, these entities were clearly engaged in a governmental function, Harrison, 194 Mich App at 450 , entitling them to dismissal of plaintiff’s claims on the basis of governmental immunity.

2026When reviewing a motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7), “this Court must consider not only the pleadings, but also any affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence filed or submitted by the parties.” RDM Holdings, LTD v Continental Plastics Co, 281 Mich App 678, 687 ; 762 NW2d 529 (2008).

2026When reviewing a motion for summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity under MCR 2.116(C)(7), “this Court must consider not only the pleadings, but also any affidavits, depositions, admissions, or other documentary evidence filed or submitted by the parties.” RDM Holdings, LTD v Continental Plastics Co, 281 Mich App 678, 687 ; 762 NW2d 529 (2008).

2025Atkins v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 492 Mich 707, 714 ; 822 NW2d 522 (2012). 2 Oliver was later added as a defendant in plaintiff’s amended brief. 3 The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); however, because the trial court granted summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity, review of the trial court’s decision is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(7).

2025Atkins v Suburban Mobility Auth for Regional Transp, 492 Mich 707, 714 ; 822 NW2d 522 (2012). 2 Oliver was later added as a defendant in plaintiff’s amended brief. 3 The trial court granted summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(10); however, because the trial court granted summary disposition on the basis of governmental immunity, review of the trial court’s decision is appropriate under MCR 2.116(C)(7).

2025Id. at 409-410 .

2024“Where a motion for summary disposition is brought under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), but the parties and the trial court relied on matters outside the pleadings, as is the case here, MCR 2.116(C)(10) is the appropriate basis for review.” Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278 Mich App 446, 457 ; 750 NW2d 615 (2008).

2024“Where a motion for summary disposition is brought under both MCR 2.116(C)(8) and (C)(10), but the parties and the trial court relied on matters outside the pleadings, as is the case here, MCR 2.116(C)(10) is the appropriate basis for review.” Silberstein v Pro-Golf of America, Inc, 278 Mich App 446, 457 ; 750 NW2d 615 (2008).

2024Plaintiff moved for reconsideration in July 2023, but in the midst of the trial court’s review of plaintiff’s motion, the Michigan Supreme Court released its decision in Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95 , 104; 1 NW3d 44 (2023), which substantially altered the open-and-obvious analysis originally set forth in Lugo v Ameritech Corp Inc, 464 Mich 512 ; 629 NW2d 384 (2001).

2024Plaintiff moved for reconsideration in July 2023, but in the midst of the trial court’s review of plaintiff’s motion, the Michigan Supreme Court released its decision in Kandil-Elsayed v F & E Oil, Inc, 512 Mich 95 , 104; 1 NW3d 44 (2023), which substantially altered the open-and-obvious analysis originally set forth in Lugo v Ameritech Corp Inc, 464 Mich 512 ; 629 NW2d 384 (2001).

2024Similarly, defendant cited in the trial court—but not on appeal—Jackson v Am Bldg Maintenance, 203 F Supp 2d 801 (ED Mich, 2002), which granted summary disposition to the defendant, a contracted agent of the City of Detroit, on the basis of governmental immunity.

2023Moreover, even if we were to agree with the individual defendants, “we would still, in the interest of judicial economy, exercise our discretion to treat [the] claim of appeal as an application for leave to appeal, grant leave, and address the [] issue presented.” Wardell v Hincka, 297 Mich App 127 , 133 n 1; 822 NW2d 278 (2012). 3 The city defendants were summarily disposed from the litigation on the basis of governmental immunity and are not parties to this appeal, but will be discussed as necessary for a full understanding of the facts. -2- speaking with plaintiff, who admitted she pulled o

2023Moreover, even if we were to agree with the individual defendants, “we would still, in the interest of judicial economy, exercise our discretion to treat [the] claim of appeal as an application for leave to appeal, grant leave, and address the [] issue presented.” Wardell v Hincka, 297 Mich App 127 , 133 n 1; 822 NW2d 278 (2012). 3 The city defendants were summarily disposed from the litigation on the basis of governmental immunity and are not parties to this appeal, but will be discussed as necessary for a full understanding of the facts. -2- speaking with plaintiff, who admitted she pulled o

2023Petipren v Jaskowski, 494 Mich 190, 201 ; 833 NW2d 247 (2013).

2021As explained in Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317, 326-327 ; 869 NW2d 635 (2015): The Legislature enacted the GTLA [governmental tort liability act] in 1964 after a series of court decisions began to erode the common-law rule of governmental immunity from tort liability.

2019Id.

2016ANALYSIS In 1964, the Legislature enacted GTLA “to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, 19 Id. at 695-696 . 20 Id. at 695 . 21 Yono v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 1040 (2015). 22 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 23 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 311 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013). 6 when engaged in a governmental function . . . .” 24 Under MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [GTLA], a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged

2016ANALYSIS In 1964, the Legislature enacted GTLA “to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, 19 Id. at 695-696 . 20 Id. at 695 . 21 Yono v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 1040 (2015). 22 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 23 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 311 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013). 6 when engaged in a governmental function . . . .” 24 Under MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [GTLA], a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged

2016ANALYSIS In 1964, the Legislature enacted GTLA “to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, 19 Id. at 695-696 . 20 Id. at 695 . 21 Yono v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 1040 (2015). 22 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 23 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 311 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013). 6 when engaged in a governmental function . . . .” 24 Under MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [GTLA], a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged

2016ANALYSIS In 1964, the Legislature enacted GTLA “to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, 19 Id. at 695-696 . 20 Id. at 695 . 21 Yono v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 1040 (2015). 22 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 23 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 311 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013). 6 when engaged in a governmental function . . . .” 24 Under MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [GTLA], a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged

2016A hearing was held on May 19, 2014, and on the basis of governmental immunity, see In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 ; 835 NW2d 545 (2013), the circuit court granted the motion with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim for civil contempt.

2016A hearing was held on May 19, 2014, and on the basis of governmental immunity, see In re Bradley Estate, 494 Mich 367 ; 835 NW2d 545 (2013), the circuit court granted the motion with respect to the plaintiffs’ claim for civil contempt.

2016ANALYSIS In 1964, the Legislature enacted GTLA “to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, 19 Id. at 695-696 . 20 Id. at 695 . 21 Yono v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 1040 (2015). 22 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 23 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 311 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013). 6 when engaged in a governmental function . . . .” 24 Under MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [GTLA], a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged

2016ANALYSIS In 1964, the Legislature enacted GTLA “to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, 19 Id. at 695-696 . 20 Id. at 695 . 21 Yono v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 1040 (2015). 22 Maiden v Rozwood, 461 Mich 109, 118 ; 597 NW2d 817 (1999). 23 Whitman v City of Burton, 493 Mich 303, 311 ; 831 NW2d 223 (2013). 6 when engaged in a governmental function . . . .” 24 Under MCL 691.1407(1), “[e]xcept as otherwise provided in [GTLA], a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged

2014MCR 7.203(A)(1); MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v); Thurman v Pontiac, 295 Mich App 381 , 383 n 1; 819 NW2d 90 (2012). -1- Defendant timely answered plaintiff’s complaint and set forth its affirmative defenses.

2014MCR 7.203(A)(1); MCR 7.202(6)(a)(v); Thurman v Pontiac, 295 Mich App 381 , 383 n 1; 819 NW2d 90 (2012). -1- Defendant timely answered plaintiff’s complaint and set forth its affirmative defenses.

2010Laurence G Wolf, 269 Mich App at 268 ; see also Huron Tool & Engineering Co v Precision Consulting Servs, 209 Mich App 365, 377 ; 532 NW2d 541 (1995) (“However, if a material factual dispute exists such that factual development could provide a basis for recovery, summary disposition is inappropriate.”).