The opinion
Kelly, J.
(concurring). The plaintiff in this case has pleaded a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity from liability under the public building exception. I agree with the majority that the fact plaintiff was injured while working on the building does not disqualify him from membership in the public entitled to the act’s protection. I also agree that the case law requiring a plaintiff to prove he was injured in a “public area” of a public building has no basis in the statute and must be disavowed. However, I cannot join today’s opinion because I believe the majority goes too far by expressing its opinion on several issues not currently before the Court.
Plaintiff was injured while doing repair work on the roof of the Cohodas Administration Building on the campus of Northern Michigan University. He fell and was injured while descending a ladder that was attached to a wall and that gave access to the roof of the building. The majority expresses an opinion on holdings of the Court of Appeals deciding (1) whether *538 the exception applies to a building entirely closed due to renovations, (2) whether a person injured outside a public building can recover, (3) whether an electric substation was a public building open for use by members of the public, and (4) whether the plaintiff occupied a city-owned apartment as a member of the public. Ante at 531-533. I express no opinion on these Court of Appeals cases because they do not involve issues that are before the Court. The issue in this case is whether there is a public area requirement in the public building exception.
It is imprudent to apply a statute to a laundry list of factual situations not on appeal. Occasionally, we reach issues not directly raised in order to give guidance to the lower courts. However, this practice should not be used as a guise to pass judgment on tangentially related Court of Appeals opinions.
I believe the proper way to review opinions of the Court of Appeals is to grant leave to appeal, thereby obtaining the benefit of briefing and oral argument. To do otherwise is disrespectful of the considered decisions of the Court of Appeals. It is inconsistent with the spirit of our own rules that require four votes to grant leave. Moreover, it does not give interested persons notice that we are considering an issue, and therefore the Court does not obtain the benefit of their necessary contributions as amici curiae.
I agree with the majority that there is no public area requirement in the public building exception. I agree, also, that neither the fact plaintiff was injured while working on the building, nor the fact that he may have been working in a restricted area, disqualify him from the act’s protection. I would reverse the judgments of the Court of Appeals and the trial court *539 on the public building exception count. However, I am unable to join in that portion of the majority opinion passing judgment on Court of Appeals cases involving issues not before us.
Cavanagh, J., concurred with Kelly, J.