Mich. Comp. Laws » Michigan Compiled Laws / Chapter 691 / Act 170 of 1964
Michigan Compiled Laws

Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401 (2026)

Definitions.

✓ current as of July 2026
Find cases: SyfertCases citing this section MI-LEGlegislature.mi.gov JustiaChapter on Justia CornellLII Search CasesGoogle Scholar

GOVERNMENTAL LIABILITY FOR NEGLIGENCE


Act 170 of 1964


691.1401 Definitions.

Sec. 1.

    As used in this act:

    (a) "Governmental agency" means this state or a political subdivision.

    (b) "Governmental function" means an activity that is expressly or impliedly mandated or authorized by constitution, statute, local charter or ordinance, or other law. Governmental function includes an activity performed on public or private property by a sworn law enforcement officer within the scope of the law enforcement officer's authority, as directed or assigned by his or her public employer for the purpose of public safety.

    (c) "Highway" means a public highway, road, or street that is open for public travel. Highway includes a bridge, sidewalk, trailway, crosswalk, or culvert on the highway. Highway does not include an alley, tree, or utility pole.

    (d) "Municipal corporation" means a city, village, or township or a combination of 2 or more of these when acting jointly.

    (e) "Political subdivision" means a municipal corporation, county, county road commission, school district, community college district, port district, metropolitan district, or transportation authority or a combination of 2 or more of these when acting jointly; a district or authority authorized by law or formed by 1 or more political subdivisions; or an agency, department, court, board, or council of a political subdivision.

    (f) "Sidewalk", except as used in subdivision (c), means a paved public sidewalk intended for pedestrian use situated outside of and adjacent to the improved portion of a highway designed for vehicular travel.

    (g) "State" means this state and its agencies, departments, commissions, courts, boards, councils, and statutorily created task forces. State includes a public university or college of this state, whether established as a constitutional corporation or otherwise.

    (h) "Township" means a general law township or a charter township.

    (i) "Volunteer" means an individual who is specifically designated as a volunteer and who is acting solely on behalf of a governmental agency.

History: 1964, Act 170, Eff. July 1, 1965 ;-- Am. 1986, Act 175, Imd. Eff. July 7, 1986 ;-- Am. 1999, Act 205, Imd. Eff. Dec. 21, 1999 ;-- Am. 2001, Act 131, Imd. Eff. Oct. 15, 2001 ;-- Am. 2012, Act 50, Imd. Eff. Mar. 13, 2012

Compiler's Notes:

    Section 3 of Act 175 of 1986 provides:

    “(1) Sections 1, 7, and 13 of Act No. 170 of the Public Acts of 1964, as amended by this amendatory act, being sections 691.1401, 691.1407, and 691.1413 of the Michigan Compiled Laws, shall not apply to causes of action which arise before July 1, 1986.

    “(2) Section 6a of Act No. 170 of the Public Acts of 1964, as added by this amendatory act, shall apply to cases filed on or after July 1, 1986.”

    In Hyde v. University of Michigan Regents, 426 Mich 223 (1986), the Supreme Court stated that “1986 PA 175 was enacted, effective July 1, 1986.” Act 175 was approved by the Governor July 6, 1986, and filed with Secretary of State July 7, 1986.

    Enacting section 1 of Act 205 of 1999 provides:

    “Enacting section 1. Sections 1 and 2 of 1964 PA 170, MCL 691.1401 and 691.1402, as amended by this amendatory act, and section 2a, as added by this amendatory act, apply only to a cause of action arising on or after the effective date of this amendatory act.”

    Enacting section 1 of Act 131 of 2001 provides:

    “Enacting section 1. The provisions of this amendatory act do not limit or reduce the scope of a governmental function as defined by statute or common law.”

PopularName Notes:

Governmental Immunity Act
Notes of Decisions
Cited in 871 cases (219 in the last 5 years), 1965–2026 · leading case: Duffy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 805 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. 2011).
Sort: Relevance Newest Treatment
Duffy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 805 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. 2011). · cites it 126× “Plaintiff sued both entities, and throughout this litigation has set forth various theories to avoid the grant of governmental immunity provided to defendants in the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. In the lower courts, she argued that defendants had…”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). · cites it 26× “This grant of immunity is currently subject to six statutory exceptions.”
Grimes v. Dep't of Transp., 715 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 2006). · cites it 14× “It sets forth the basic tenets of governmental immunity: "Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function." MCL 691.”
MacK v. City of Detroit, 649 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 8× “§ 691.1401(b), is a "governmental agency" for purposes of governmental immunity.”
Snead v. John Carlo, Inc., 813 N.W.2d 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). · cites it 13× “MDOT maintained that the construction activities clearly and undeniably entailed the exercise and discharge of a governmental function; therefore, it was immune from tort liability under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., and more specifically MCL…”
Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights, 627 N.W.2d 581 (Mich. 2001). · cites it 10× “§ 691.1401 et seq., provides immunity for governmental agencies, including municipalities like defendant.”
Stevenson v. City of Detroit, 689 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). · cites it 22× “, [1] the Michigan Supreme Court noted the "return to a narrow construction of the highway exception predicated upon a close examination of the statute's plain language.”
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007). · cites it 8× “[30] Political subdivisions such as defendant enjoy immunity from tort liability under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. [31] Under the GTLA, the defendant is immune from tort liability "unless the Legislature has pulled back the veil of immunity…”
Pohutski v. City of Allen Park, 641 N.W.2d 219 (Mich. 2002). · cites it 6× “[MCL 691.1401.] Under a plain reading of the statute, then, the first sentence of § 7 applies to both municipal corporations and the state, while the second sentence applies only to the state.”
Genesee Cnty. Drain Comm'r v. Genesee Cnty., 309 Mich. App. 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). · cites it 12× “Blue Cross 1 MCL 691.1401, et seq. 2 Plaintiffs have also appealed a procedural issue: whether equitable estoppel may be applied to negate the statute of limitations and allow plaintiffs to seek contract damages for injuries accrued prior to October 24, 2005.”
Hyde v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 393 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 1986). · cites it 12× “In Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), this Court attempted to clarify the parameters of sovereign, governmental, and individual immunity from tort liability granted by the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq.; MSA…”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016). · cites it 9× “Under the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., the immunity conferred on governmental agencies is broad and the statutory exceptions to that immunity must be narrowly construed.”
Show all 871 citing cases →
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(1) — 3 cases
Lawrence Russell v. City of Detroit, 909 N.W.2d 507 (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Ballard v. Ypsilanti Twp., 577 N.W.2d 890 (Mich. 1998).
Wilda Wallace v. City of Detroit (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(1)(a) — 4 cases
Li v. Feldt, 456 N.W.2d 55 (Mich. 1990).
Jennifer Curts v. Mott Cmty. Coll. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Jennifer Curts v. Mott Cmty. Coll. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Est. of Nancy Sanders v. Kenneth a Wright (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(1)(b) — 1 case
Est. of Nancy Sanders v. Kenneth a Wright (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(1)(c) — 1 case
Li v. Feldt, 456 N.W.2d 55 (Mich. 1990).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(1)(d) — 1 case
Li v. Feldt, 456 N.W.2d 55 (Mich. 1990).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(1)(e) — 2 cases
Jennifer Curts v. Mott Cmty. Coll. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Jennifer Curts v. Mott Cmty. Coll. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(1)(g) — 1 case
Est. of Nancy Sanders v. Kenneth a Wright (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(2) — 1 case
Ivan Williams Jr v. Washtenaw Indep. Sch. Dist. (Mich. Ct. App. 2021).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(2)(c) — 1 case
Siddock v. Grand Trunk W. R.R., 556 F. Supp. 2d 731 (W.D. Mich. 2008).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(a) — 73 cases
Genesee Cnty. Drain Comm'r v. Genesee Cnty., 309 Mich. App. 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Blue Cross 1 MCL 691.1401, et seq. 2 Plaintiffs have also appealed a procedural issue: whether equitable estoppel may be applied to negate the statute of limitations and allow plaintiffs to seek contract damages for injuries accrued prior to October 24, 2005.”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “This grant of immunity is currently subject to six statutory exceptions.”
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Thomas J Petipren v. Rodney Jaskowski, 494 Mich. 190 (Mich. 2013).
Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 822 N.W.2d 799 (Mich. Ct. App. 2012).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(b) — 76 cases
Lansing Schs. Educ. Ass'n v. Lansing Bd. of Educ., 487 Mich. 349 (Mich. 2010).
MacK v. City of Detroit, 649 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. 2002). “§ 691.1401(b), is a "governmental agency" for purposes of governmental immunity.”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “This grant of immunity is currently subject to six statutory exceptions.”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016). “Under the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., the immunity conferred on governmental agencies is broad and the statutory exceptions to that immunity must be narrowly construed.”
Genesee Cnty. Drain Comm'r v. Genesee Cnty., 309 Mich. App. 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015). “Blue Cross 1 MCL 691.1401, et seq. 2 Plaintiffs have also appealed a procedural issue: whether equitable estoppel may be applied to negate the statute of limitations and allow plaintiffs to seek contract damages for injuries accrued prior to October 24, 2005.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(b)(c)(d) — 1 case
Doan v. Kellogg Cmty. Coll., 263 N.W.2d 357 (Mich. Ct. App. 1977).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(c) — 48 cases
Duffy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 805 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. 2011). “Plaintiff sued both entities, and throughout this litigation has set forth various theories to avoid the grant of governmental immunity provided to defendants in the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. In the lower courts, she argued that defendants had…”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “This grant of immunity is currently subject to six statutory exceptions.”
Blue Harvest, Inc. v. Dep't of Transp., 792 N.W.2d 798 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
Grimes v. Dep't of Transp., 715 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 2006). “It sets forth the basic tenets of governmental immunity: "Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function." MCL 691.”
Yono v. Dep't of Transp., 885 N.W.2d 445 (Mich. 2016). “Under the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq., the immunity conferred on governmental agencies is broad and the statutory exceptions to that immunity must be narrowly construed.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(d) — 40 cases
MacK v. City of Detroit, 649 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. 2002). “§ 691.1401(b), is a "governmental agency" for purposes of governmental immunity.”
Lash v. City of Traverse City, 735 N.W.2d 628 (Mich. 2007). “[30] Political subdivisions such as defendant enjoy immunity from tort liability under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. [31] Under the GTLA, the defendant is immune from tort liability "unless the Legislature has pulled back the veil of immunity…”
Duffy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 805 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. 2011). “Plaintiff sued both entities, and throughout this litigation has set forth various theories to avoid the grant of governmental immunity provided to defendants in the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. In the lower courts, she argued that defendants had…”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “This grant of immunity is currently subject to six statutory exceptions.”
Grimes v. Dep't of Transp., 715 N.W.2d 275 (Mich. 2006). “It sets forth the basic tenets of governmental immunity: "Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function." MCL 691.”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(e) — 97 cases
Duffy v. Dep't of Nat. Resources, 805 N.W.2d 399 (Mich. 2011). “Plaintiff sued both entities, and throughout this litigation has set forth various theories to avoid the grant of governmental immunity provided to defendants in the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq. In the lower courts, she argued that defendants had…”
Robinson v. City of Lansing, 782 N.W.2d 171 (Mich. 2010). “This grant of immunity is currently subject to six statutory exceptions.”
Stevenson v. City of Detroit, 689 N.W.2d 239 (Mich. Ct. App. 2004). “, [1] the Michigan Supreme Court noted the "return to a narrow construction of the highway exception predicated upon a close examination of the statute's plain language.”
Snead v. John Carlo, Inc., 813 N.W.2d 294 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011). “MDOT maintained that the construction activities clearly and undeniably entailed the exercise and discharge of a governmental function; therefore, it was immune from tort liability under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA), MCL 691.1401 et seq., and more specifically MCL…”
Johnson-McIntosh v. City of Detroit, 701 N.W.2d 179 (Mich. Ct. App. 2005).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(f) — 65 cases
MacK v. City of Detroit, 649 N.W.2d 47 (Mich. 2002). “§ 691.1401(b), is a "governmental agency" for purposes of governmental immunity.”
Haliw v. City of Sterling Heights, 627 N.W.2d 581 (Mich. 2001). “§ 691.1401 et seq., provides immunity for governmental agencies, including municipalities like defendant.”
Maskery v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 664 N.W.2d 165 (Mich. 2003).
Dextrom v. Wexford Cnty., 789 N.W.2d 211 (Mich. Ct. App. 2010).
Hyde v. Univ. of Michigan Bd. of Regents, 393 N.W.2d 847 (Mich. 1986). “In Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567 ; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), this Court attempted to clarify the parameters of sovereign, governmental, and individual immunity from tort liability granted by the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1401 et seq.; MSA…”
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(g) — 10 cases
Arabo v. Michigan Gaming Control Bd., 872 N.W.2d 223 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015).
Local Emergency Fin. Assistance Loan Bd. v. Blackwell, 832 N.W.2d 401 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Jacqueline Anna Reed v. State of Michigan, 922 N.W.2d 386 (Mich. Ct. App. 2018).
Thomas Goodhue v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
Thomas Goodhue v. Dep't of Transp. (Mich. Ct. App. 2017).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(i) — 2 cases
Niederhouse v. Palmerton, 836 N.W.2d 176 (Mich. Ct. App. 2013).
Margaret Gathright v. Mission Hills Mem'l Gardens (Mich. Ct. App. 2023).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(k) — 1 case
Debra Harper v. City of Fraser (Mich. Ct. App. 2016).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(l)(a) — 1 case
Li v. Feldt, 456 N.W.2d 55 (Mich. 1990).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(l)(c) — 2 cases
Li v. Feldt, 456 N.W.2d 55 (Mich. 1990).
O'Neill v. Emma L Bixby Hosp., 451 N.W.2d 594 (Mich. Ct. App. 1990).
— Mich. Comp. Laws § 691.1401(l)(d) — 1 case
Li v. Feldt, 456 N.W.2d 55 (Mich. 1990).
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.