governmental-hospital 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

2017Hannay v Dep’t of Transp, 497 Mich 45 , 60 n 34; 860 NW2d 67 (2014).

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).

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).

2022Plaintiff seeks to avoid governmental immunity by using the governmental-hospital exception, which provides, in relevant part, “This act does not grant immunity to a governmental agency or an employee or agent of a governmental agency with respect to providing medical care or treatment -4- to a patient . . . .” MCL 691.1407(4). “[I]t is the responsibility of the party seeking to impose liability on a governmental agency to demonstrate that its case falls within one of the exceptions.” Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 201 ; 649 NW2d 47 (2002).

2022Plaintiff seeks to avoid governmental immunity by using the governmental-hospital exception, which provides, in relevant part, “This act does not grant immunity to a governmental agency or an employee or agent of a governmental agency with respect to providing medical care or treatment -4- to a patient . . . .” MCL 691.1407(4). “[I]t is the responsibility of the party seeking to impose liability on a governmental agency to demonstrate that its case falls within one of the exceptions.” Mack v Detroit, 467 Mich 186, 201 ; 649 NW2d 47 (2002).

2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998).

2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998).

2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998).

2017“Therefore, to be a proprietary function, an activity ‘(1) must be conducted primarily for the purpose of producing a pecuniary profit; and (2) it cannot normally be supported by taxes and fees.’” Herman v Detroit, 261 Mich App 141, 145 ; 680 NW2d 71 (2004), quoting Coleman v Kootsillas, 456 Mich 615, 621 ; 575 NW2d 527 (1998).

2022Musulin v Univ of Mich Bd of Regents, 214 Mich App 277, 286-287 ; 543 NW2d 337 (1995).

2022The Musulin Court based its decision on the governmental-hospital exception’s broad language waiving sovereign immunity for claims related to “ownership or operation of a hospital.” Id. at 285 .

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

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).

2013This provision, which is a codification of courts’ power at common law to punish contemptuous conduct,22 states in relevant part: The supreme court, circuit court, and all other courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases: * * * (c) All attorneys, counselors, clerks, registers, sheriffs, coroners, and all other persons in any manner elected or appointed to perform any judicial or ministerial services, for any misbehavior in their office or trust, or for any willful neglec

2013This provision, which is a codification of courts’ power at common law to punish contemptuous conduct,22 states in relevant part: The supreme court, circuit court, and all other courts of record, have power to punish by fine or imprisonment, or both, persons guilty of any neglect or violation of duty or misconduct in all of the following cases: * * * (c) All attorneys, counselors, clerks, registers, sheriffs, coroners, and all other persons in any manner elected or appointed to perform any judicial or ministerial services, for any misbehavior in their office or trust, or for any willful neglec

2010Clerk v. Jones, 335 Mich. 658, 662 , 57 N.W.2d 40 (1953).

2010Clerk v. Jones, 335 Mich. 658, 662 , 57 N.W.2d 40 (1953).

2010Finally, a "municipal corporation" includes a "city, village, [and] township...." MCL 691.1401(a). [2] The six statutory exceptions 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 proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; (5) the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and (6) the sewage-disposal-system exception, MCL 691.1417. [3] Const. 1963, art. 7, § 29 provides that "the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets

2010Finally, a "municipal corporation" includes a "city, village, [and] township...." MCL 691.1401(a). [2] The six statutory exceptions 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 proprietary-function exception, MCL 691.1413; (5) the governmental-hospital exception, MCL 691.1407(4); and (6) the sewage-disposal-system exception, MCL 691.1417. [3] Const. 1963, art. 7, § 29 provides that "the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets

2010Const 1963, art 7, § 29 provides that “the right of all counties, townships, cities and villages to the reasonable control of their highways, streets, alleys and public places is hereby reserved to such local units of government.” As the Court of Appeals noted, “the city does not dispute that it has jurisdiction over the sidewalk adjacent to Michigan Avenue.” Robinson, 282 Mich App at 612-613 .

2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] 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). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag

2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] 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). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag

2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] 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). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag

2008MCR 7.215(J)(1). [8] Kik v. Sbraccia, 272 Mich.App. 388 , 726 N.W.2d 450 (2006) ( Kik it ). [9] 478 Mich. 861 , 731 N.W.2d 406 (2007). [10] 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). [11] Justice Kelly asserts that our application of the statutory text will lead to absurd results, but we respectfully disag

2007NOTES [1] Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued December 13, 2005, 2005 WL 3416133 (Docket No. 253210). [2] 474 Mich. 1099 , 711 N.W.2d 376 (2006). [3] The Legislature codified the following six exceptions in the GTLA: the defective 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.

2007NOTES [1] Unpublished opinion per curiam, issued December 13, 2005, 2005 WL 3416133 (Docket No. 253210). [2] 474 Mich. 1099 , 711 N.W.2d 376 (2006). [3] The Legislature codified the following six exceptions in the GTLA: the defective 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.

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

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

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

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