design defect claim in Michigan

2007In our order granting leave, we asked the parties to address three questions: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly characterized the alleged dangerous or defective condition in this case as a design defect; (2) whether the public building exception, which obligates a governmental agency “to repair and maintain public buildings,” permits a party to bring a design defect claim; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals conclusion that the icy sidewalk was not a transitory condition is contrary to this Court’s decision in Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158 ; 483 NW2d 26 (1992).

2007In our order granting leave, we asked the parties to address three questions: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly characterized the alleged dangerous or defective condition in this case as a design defect; (2) whether the public building exception, which obligates a governmental agency “to repair and maintain public buildings,” permits a party to bring a design defect claim; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals conclusion that the icy sidewalk was not a transitory condition is contrary to this Court’s decision in Wade v Dep’t of Corrections, 439 Mich 158 ; 483 NW2d 26 (1992).

2019Renny, 478 Mich at 505 .

2019And because a design-defect claim does not fall within the plain language of the public-building exception, Renny, 478 Mich at 505 , we hold that plaintiff’s claims against the DTC, to the extent they rely on allegations about the surveillance cameras, are barred by governmental immunity.

2007Robinson, 462 Mich. at 464 , 613 N.W.2d 307 .

2007A majority of this Court (which included the dissenting justice) noted that “whether a design defect may actually constitute a defect in a public building sufficient to invoke the public building exception has caused this Court considerable difficulty.” de Sanchez, 455 Mich at 96 .

2007A majority of this Court (which included the dissenting justice) noted that "whether a design defect may actually constitute a defect in a public building sufficient to invoke the public building exception has caused this Court considerable difficulty." de Sanchez, 455 Mich. at 96 , 565 N.W.2d 358 .

2007See Lee v Highland Park School Dist, 118 Mich App 305, 309 ; 324 NW2d 632 (1982); Young v City of Ann Arbor, 119 Mich App 512, 520-521 ; 326 NW2d 547 (1982); Landry v Detroit, 143 Mich App 16, 22 ; 371 NW2d 466 (1985).

2007See Lee v Highland Park School Dist, 118 Mich App 305, 309 ; 324 NW2d 632 (1982); Young v City of Ann Arbor, 119 Mich App 512, 520-521 ; 326 NW2d 547 (1982); Landry v Detroit, 143 Mich App 16, 22 ; 371 NW2d 466 (1985).

2007In our order granting leave, we asked the parties to address three questions: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly characterized the alleged dangerous or defective condition in this case as a design defect; (2) whether the public building exception, which obligates a governmental agency "to repair and maintain public buildings," permits a party to bring a design defect claim; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the icy sidewalk was not a transitory condition is contrary to this Court's decision in Wade. [8] Grimes v. Dep't of Transportation, 475 Mich. 72, 76 , 715 N.W.2

2007In our order granting leave, we asked the parties to address three questions: (1) whether the Court of Appeals correctly characterized the alleged dangerous or defective condition in this case as a design defect; (2) whether the public building exception, which obligates a governmental agency "to repair and maintain public buildings," permits a party to bring a design defect claim; and (3) whether the Court of Appeals' conclusion that the icy sidewalk was not a transitory condition is contrary to this Court's decision in Wade. [8] Grimes v. Dep't of Transportation, 475 Mich. 72, 76 , 715 N.W.2

2007See Lee v Highland Park School Dist, 118 Mich App 305, 309 ; 324 NW2d 632 (1982); Young v City of Ann Arbor, 119 Mich App 512, 520-521 ; 326 NW2d 547 (1982); Landry v Detroit, 143 Mich App 16, 22 ; 371 NW2d 466 (1985).

2007See Lee v Highland Park School Dist, 118 Mich App 305, 309 ; 324 NW2d 632 (1982); Young v City of Ann Arbor, 119 Mich App 512, 520-521 ; 326 NW2d 547 (1982); Landry v Detroit, 143 Mich App 16, 22 ; 371 NW2d 466 (1985).

2001Our courts have stated that negligence and breach of implied warranty may, in certain factual contexts, involve the same elements and proofs, both in a failure to warn claim, Smith v E R Squibb & Sons, Inc, 405 Mich 79, 88 ; 273 NW2d 476 (1979), and in a design defect claim, Prentis v Yale Mfg Co, 421 Mich 670, 692 ; 365 NW2d 176 (1984).

2001Our courts have stated that negligence and breach of implied warranty may, in certain factual contexts, involve the same elements and proofs, both in a failure to warn claim, Smith v E R Squibb & Sons, Inc, 405 Mich 79, 88 ; 273 NW2d 476 (1979), and in a design defect claim, Prentis v Yale Mfg Co, 421 Mich 670, 692 ; 365 NW2d 176 (1984).

2001Our courts have stated that negligence and breach of implied warranty may, in certain factual contexts, involve the same elements and proofs, both in a failure to warn claim, Smith v E R Squibb & Sons, Inc, 405 Mich 79, 88 ; 273 NW2d 476 (1979), and in a design defect claim, Prentis v Yale Mfg Co, 421 Mich 670, 692 ; 365 NW2d 176 (1984).

2001Our courts have stated that negligence and breach of implied warranty may, in certain factual contexts, involve the same elements and proofs, both in a failure to warn claim, Smith v E R Squibb & Sons, Inc, 405 Mich 79, 88 ; 273 NW2d 476 (1979), and in a design defect claim, Prentis v Yale Mfg Co, 421 Mich 670, 692 ; 365 NW2d 176 (1984).

1996Justice Boyle does not explain why the allegation that the road commission failed to properly design the intersection indicates that there is a defect in the roadbed surface. [6] In fact, Chief Justice Cavanagh himself appeared to recognize this point in his concurring opinion in Chaney, supra at 178 , 523 N.W.2d 762 .