Case law

McIntosh v. Department of Transportation

234 Mich. App. 379 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jun 10, 1999

A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) is reviewed by this Court de novo to determine if the claim is so clearly unenforceable as a matter of law that no factual development could establish the claim and justify recovery. … As such, we are not convinced that no factual development can establish the plaintiffs’ claim such that summary disposition should be granted pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8).

Jeff Britten v. Circle H Stables Inc

Michigan Court of Appeals · Sep 14, 2023

Although liability for such conduct would not ordinarily be waivable under the common law, the Legislature may abrogate the common law if it does so clearly. … We hold that with the enactment of 2015 PA 87, the Legislature clearly intended to abrogate this area of the common law for actions under the EALA.

Bofysil v. Department of State Highways

44 Mich. App. 118 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 6, 1972

This has been construed as determining the legislative intent to re-establish the doctrine of sovereign immunity by statute. … The trial court’s conclusion that defendants were guilty of negligence is clearly supported by the record and therefore not clearly erroneous.

John Does 11-18 v. Department of Corrections

323 Mich. App. 479 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 27, 2018

Hamed clearly holds that plaintiffs cannot avoid the GTLA by simply alleging a violation of the ELCRA. … Article 3 of the ELCRA only applies to establishments that are “open to the public[.]” See MCL 37.2303.

Williams v. Horton

175 Mich. App. 25 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 21, 1989

, stated: [W]e believe that conduct of the state defendants in this case was discretionary-decisional, thereby qualifying for immunity under Ross . … Clearly, the placement of Williams was not, as may be inferred from certain statements of the trial court, limited merely to fulfilling, by way of routine and unthinking obedience, the order to "place the child” in this case

Branum v. Board of Regents of University

5 Mich. App. 134 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 17, 1967

This Court recognizes the wisdom of establishing a separate governing body of the University of Michigan, free from the political influences that are necessarily a part of a State legislature. … Without these confines, however, there is no reason to allow the regents to use their independence to thwart the clearly established public policy of the people of Michigan.

Regan v. Washtenaw County Board of County Road Commissioners

257 Mich. App. 39 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 23, 2003

Chandler is clearly factually distinguishable because the bus in that case was not being driven but was in for cleaning at the time of the injury. … This purpose is further evidenced by the highway exception to governmental immunity. MCL 691.1402.

Warren Franklin v. McLaren Flint

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 25, 2024

Viewed in context of the full statute, this broad phrase is limited by the qualifying language “in support of this state’s response to the COVID-19 pandemic.” … Through other subsections, the Act clearly defines “health care services” and “health care facility” as used in the statute.

Gifford v. Evans

35 Mich. App. 559 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Aug 24, 1971

Hosko (1971), 385 Mich 39 , which abolishes the doctrine of interspousal immunity in Michigan. … (Emphasis supplied.) *572 A comparison of the above cases with the facts of the instant case clearly establishes that the most favorable testimony for plaintiffs in this case will show that the accident occurred solely because

Linton v. Arenac County Road Commission

273 Mich. App. 107 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 28, 2006

The Lintons now appeal as of right the trial court’s order granting summary disposition for the Road Commission on the basis of governmental immunity. II. SEWAGE DISPOSAL SYSTEM EVENTS AND GOVERNMENTAL IMMUNITY A. … “SYSTEM” Jackson is again relevant for providing some instruction on whether the roadside drainage ditch here qualifies as “a storm water drain system."

Couch v. Schultz

176 Mich. App. 167 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Mar 21, 1989

immunity. … The trial court declined to address the applicability of defendant’s absolute or qualified immunity arguments, the other grounds upon which defendant also requested summary disposition.

McGoldrick v. Holiday Amusements, Inc.

242 Mich. App. 286 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Oct 18, 2000

The clear language of the sasa establishes that plaintiff’s injury comes within the immunity provisions. … of the SASA clearly required that such equipment be properly marked or plainly visible in order for immunity to apply, and no restrictions being placed on immunity for injuries arising from collisions with other skiers.

Stablein v. Schuster

183 Mich. App. 477 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Feb 8, 1990

The immunity is a qualified one, but defendant has met the qualifications that the report must be fair and true. … A trial court’s finding that a plaintiff’s claim is not frivolous is governed by the clearly erroneous standard. DeWald v Isola, 180 Mich App 129, 134 ; 446 NW2d 620 (1989).

Schiller v. Muskegon State Park

153 Mich. App. 472 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Jul 21, 1996

Defendant moved for summary disposition, contending that a state-owned park qualified for governmental immunity and that the recreational use act protected the park from claims of ordinary negligence. … Lastly, defendant correctly argues that the plaintiffs have not alleged facts establishing gross negligence or wilful arid wanton misconduct sufficient to avoid immunity.

Disappearing Lakes Ass'n v. Department of Natural Resources

121 Mich. App. 61 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Nov 3, 1982

One was that the complaint failed to plead facts establishing negligence, nuisance, or violation of any statute. … He found the plaintiffs had not pled facts sufficient to establish the nuisance exception to the doctrine of governmental immunity. This appeal followed. We look at the complaint against the state and its department.

Matts v. Homsi

106 Mich. App. 563 · Michigan Court of Appeals · May 20, 1981

The testimony adduced by plaintiff indicated that defendant clearly had certain hospital responsibilities. … Plaintiff also contends that defendant should not have been afforded partial immunity since there was a doctor-patient relationship established prior to the advent of the emergency.

Elia Companies LLC v. University of Michigan Regents

Michigan Court of Appeals · Jan 21, 2021

The provision of commercial food establishments is part of that function. … COURT OF CLAIMS NOTICE PROVISIONS “In MCL 600.6431(1) [and (2)], the Legislature has qualified a claimant’s ability to bring a claim against the state by requiring that ‘the claim or notice shall be signed and verified

Domestic Linen Supply & Laundry Co. v. Stone

111 Mich. App. 827 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Dec 16, 1981

Similarly, in Raymond, supra, a budget director reporting to a state administrative board was held to have only a qualified immunity. … Each of the remaining business torts alleged to have been committed requires extraneous proof which plaintiff may, or may not, be able to establish.

Zyskowski v. Habelmann

150 Mich. App. 230 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 7, 1986

However, a statutory exception to immunity provides that an agency is not immune from liability for improperly maintained roads under the agency’s jurisdiction. … Since the city in the present case clearly did not have jurisdiction over Outer Drive, it is immune from tort liability for any alleged failure to properly maintain the road or lighting, and the trial court appropriately

Blue Harvest, Inc. v. Department of Transportation

288 Mich. App. 267 · Michigan Court of Appeals · Apr 29, 2010

Ross clearly indicates that exceptions to sovereign immunity must be granted by the Legislature. … However, plaintiffs’ injury clearly is merely of a different degree than that suffered by the public at large and therefore is not actionable. Spiek, 456 Mich at 350 .