Opinion

Renny v. Department of Transportation

  • 478 Mich. 490
  • 734 N.W.2d 518
Court
Michigan Supreme Court
Filed
Jul 11, 2007
Status
Published
Author
Weaver
On the bench
Weaver, Taylor, Corrigan, Markman, Young, Cavanagh, Kelly
Cited by
24 cases
Authority
More cited than 0.0%

stating that a “ ‘dangerous or defective condition of a public building’ arises out of the governmental agency’s failure to repair and maintain that building”

How later courts described this case

  • stating that a “ ‘dangerous or defective condition of a public building’ arises out of the governmental agency’s failure to repair and maintain that building”
  • explaining that the word “design” “refers to the initial concept of the building . . . .”
  • “[T]o the extent that plaintiffs claim is premised on a design defect of a public building, it is barred by governmental immunity.”

Written by the judges who cited it.

The opinion

WEAVER, J.

(concurring in the result only). I concur only in the result reached by the majority to affirm the Court of Appeals reversal of summary disposition in *508 favor of defendant Michigan Department of Transportation and to remand this case to the Court of Claims for farther proceedings on the basis that plaintiffs’ complaint alternatively alleged that defendant failed to “repair and maintain” a public building pursuant to MCL 691.1406. 1

Because a majority of this Court has concluded that plaintiffs’ complaint adequately alleged a claim against defendant for injuries plaintiff Karen Renny sustained as a result of defendant’s failure to “repair and maintain” the rest area building, this Court need not address the issue whether plaintiffs could also pursue a claim for defective building design. In this respect, our order 2 granting leave to appeal and requesting the parties to address this issue was unnecessary and improvident. Moreover, any commentary by the majority on the question of defective building design is obiter dictum.

Thus, because the Court can decide this case without resorting to consideration of whether recovery is available under MCL 691.1406 for a plaintiff who alleges that injuries occurred as a result of a defectively designed public building, I would leave for another day consideration of the question whether recovery is available on the basis of defective design.

MCL 691.1406 provides, in pertinent part:

Governmental agencies have the obligation to repair and maintain public buildings under their control when open for use by members of the public. Governmental agencies are liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from a dangerous or defective condition of a public building if the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and, for a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge, faded to remedy the condition or to take action reasonably necessary to protect the public against the condition.

Renny v Dep’t of Transportation, 477 Mich 958 (2006).

This is a copy of a public record, reproduced as it was published. It is not legal advice, and it may not be the version a court would rely on. Check the official source before you cite it.

A word about cookies

We need a few to keep you signed in and the library working. The rest help us see which pages people use and where they get stuck. They stay off unless you say yes.