The trial court ruled that plaintiff's negligence action was barred by governmental immunity. Because this case was decided below on a motion for summary disposition, we review the matter de novo as a question of law. Similarly, issues of statutory or constitutional interpretation call for de novo review. Plaintiff first challenges the trial court's conclusion that the dairy barn operation in which he was injured was a governmental function, arguing that running a dairy barn does not qualify as performing a governmental function because that activity is not mandated by law. It is well settled that defendant is an agency of the state within the meaning of this statute.
Governmental immunity embraces all activities that are incidents of running prisons.
Whether governmental immunity applies in this case hinges on whether the dairy barn in question was a governmental function. MCL 800.321 et seq. Accordingly, we hold that the trial court properly dismissed plaintiff's suit as barred by governmental immunity. Plaintiff next argues that if running a dairy barn is a governmental function in this instance, the trial court erred by concluding that the proprietary-function exception to governmental immunity does not apply. Bearing on the question whether an activity constitutes a proprietary function is whether the activity actually generates profit, and whether any revenues generated are directed toward paying for unrelated undertakings.