Case Name: LANDSFIELD v. R J SMITH CONTRACTORS, INC
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1983-09-14
Citations: 128 Mich. App. 704
Docket Number: Docket No. 59303
Parties: LANDSFIELD v R J SMITH CONTRACTORS, INC
Judges: Before: R. M. Maher, P.J., and Mackenzie and M. B. Breighner, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 128
Pages: 704–709

Head Matter:
LANDSFIELD v R J SMITH CONTRACTORS, INC
Docket No. 59303.
Submitted March 23, 1983, at Detroit. —
Decided September 14, 1983.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Plaintiffs, Frank R. and Dorothy Landsfield, contracted with defendant R. J. Smith Contractors, Inc., for the construction of their home in 1971. Prior to the completion of the residence, defendant Robert Troy, the East China Township Building Inspector, inspected the property and issued a certificate of compliance with the township building code. After the residence was completed and the Landsfields moved in, they observed cracks and separations in the walls of the premises. In 1979, plaintiffs brought an action against defendants in the St. Clair Circuit Court, alleging that Smith Contractors failed to comply with the contract and building code and that Mr. Troy breached his duty to inspect the premises and determine whether it complied with the building code. The court, James T. Corden, J., granted accelerated judgment for Troy. Plaintiffs appealed. Troy cross-appealed, claiming that the trial court erred in not granting summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity. Held:
A public employee is protected by governmental immunity only if his tortious conduct falls within the scope of his employment. A negligent act falls within the scope of a public employee’s employment only if the duty breached is imposed because of his public employment. Mr. Troy’s duty was dependent upon his public employment. Therefore, he is entitled to the protection of governmental immunity.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Robert Troy.
Mackenzie, J., dissented. She believed that the proper test for determining whether a person employed by a government agency is protected by governmental immunity is whether the negligent act complained of is ministerial or discretionary and that even if the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function, the public employee is personally liable for his negligent act if it was merely ministerial rather than discretionary. She would affirm the accelerated judgment on the basis of the bar of the statute of limitations to the action.
References for Points in Headnotes
57 Am Jur 2d, Municipal, School, and State Tort Liability § 88.
57 Am Jur 2d, Municipal, School, and State Tort Liability § 45.
Opinion of the Court
1. Governmental Immunity — Public Employees — Scope of Employment Test.
A public employee is protected by governmental immunity only if his tortious conduct falls within the scope of his employment; a negligent act falls within the scope of a public employee’s employment only if the duty breached is imposed because of his public employment; the duty must be dependent upon public employment.
Dissent by Mackenzie, J.
2. Governmental Immunity — Public Employees — Discretionary-Ministerial Task.
The proper test for determining whether a person employed by a government agency is protected by governmental immunity is whether the negligent act complained of is ministerial or discretionary; even if the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a government function, the public employee is personally liable for his negligent act if it was merely ministerial rather than discretionary.
J. Thomas McGovern, for plaintiff.
McKay, Murphy & Guerre, P.C. (by Libby Altman Berngard), for defendant Troy.
Before: R. M. Maher, P.J., and Mackenzie and M. B. Breighner, JJ.
Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
Plaintiffs appeal from the trial court's order granting defendant Robert Troy's motion for accelerated judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 116.1(5). Mr. Troy cross-appeals from the trial court's denial of his motion for summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(3).
On May 24, 1971, plaintiffs contracted with defendant R. J. Smith Contractors, Inc. (Smith), for the construction of their residence. Shortly before the completion of the project, Mr. Troy, the building inspector for the Township of East China, inspected the structure. According to the complaint, Mr. Troy assured the plaintiffs that the structure was free of defects, even though the walls displayed cracks and separations. In July, 1979, plaintiffs commenced this action. Count I of the complaint alleged that Smith had failed to comply with the contract and with the building code of the township. Count II alleged that Mr. Troy breached his duty to inspect the plaintiffs' residence to determine whether it complied with the township's building code.
We find that Mr. Troy's claim on cross-appeal is dispositive and, therefore, we decline to address plaintiffs' allegation of error.
Mr. Troy moved for summary judgment on the ground that he was entitled to governmental immunity. This Court is divided on the proper standard to apply in assessing a public employee's claim that he is entitled to governmental immunity. Some panels subscribe to the ministerial-discretionary test. See, e.g., Willis v Nienow, 113 Mich App 30; 317 NW2d 273 (1982). Other panels have held that a public employee is immune from liability for negligence arising out of acts performed within the scope of employment. See, e.g., Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692; 314 NW2d 728 (1981). We follow the "scope of employment test". Under that test, a public employee is immune from liability for negligence only if the duty allegedly breached is imposed upon him because of the public nature of his employment. Davis v Lhim, 124 Mich App 291; 335 NW2d 481 (1983). In the present case, Mr. Troy's duty to determine whether plaintiffs' residence complied with the building code of the township is basically a public duty. Therefore, Mr. Troy is entitled to governmental immunity. The trial court erred in ruling otherwise.
Reversed and remanded to the trial court with instructions to enter summary judgment in favor of defendant Robert Troy.
Reversed and remanded. No costs, a significant public question being involved.