# Renny v. Department of Transportation

> Michigan Supreme Court · July 11, 2007 · 478 Mich. 490

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503890

## Case

- **Full name:** Renny v. Department of Transportation
- **Court:** Michigan Supreme Court
- **Decided:** July 11, 2007
- **Citations:** 478 Mich. 490; 734 N.W.2d 518
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Weaver
- **Judges:** Weaver, Taylor, Corrigan, Markman, Young, Cavanagh, Kelly
- **Cited by:** 24 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503890

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- 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 . . . .”

## Opinion text

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).

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9503890. Public record. Not legal advice.