Case Name: GARCIA v. CITY OF JACKSON (ON REMAND)
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1989-01-17
Citations: 174 Mich. App. 373
Docket Number: Docket No. 109324
Parties: GARCIA v CITY OF JACKSON (ON REMAND)
Judges: Before: Cynar, P.J., and Mackenzie and Wahls, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 174
Pages: 373–379

Head Matter:
GARCIA v CITY OF JACKSON (ON REMAND)
Docket No. 109324.
Submitted June 9, 1988, at Lansing.
Decided January 17, 1989.
Leave to appeal granted, 432 Mich —.
Manual Garcia, Sr., individually and as personal representative of the estate of Javier Garcia, and others brought an action in Jackson Circuit Court against the City of Jackson. Plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that decedent drowned as a result of defendant’s failure to place a grating over an opening at Holden Dam and that such failure constituted a nuisance per se and nuisance in fact. Defendant moved for summary judgment under the recreational use act. The trial court, James G. Fleming, J., granted the motion, but permitted plaintiffs to amend their complaint. After amendment of the complaint, defendant again moved for summary judgment. The trial court treated the motion as one seeking summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity and granted the motion. Plaintiffs appealed. The Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, holding that the claims of nuisance per se and nuisance in fact were not barred by governmental immunity and that plaintiff had adequately alleged wilful and wanton misconduct so as to remove the claim from the operation of the recreational use act. 152 Mich App 254 (1986). The Court of Appeals certified that its opinion was in conflict with other decisions of the Court of Appeals. Defendant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which ordered the matter held in abeyance pending decision in several pending cases. Following its decision in Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm’r, 430 Mich 139 (1988), the Supreme Court, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, vacated the judgment of the Court of Appeals and remanded for reconsideration in light of Hadfield. 430 Mich 877 (1988).
On remand, the Court of Appeals held:
Since the majority of the justices did not vote to override prior precedent concerning the intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity so as to establish binding precedent in future cases, claims based on intentional nuisance continue not to be barred by governmental immunity.
References
Am Jur 2d, Municipal, County, School, and State Tort Liability §§ 159 et seq.
See the Index to Annotations under Governmental Immunity or Privilege; Nuisances.
Reversed and remanded.
Mackenzie, J., dissented. She would hold that, while no one view of the scope of the nuisance exception commanded a majority of the Supreme Court, the nature of the nuisance claim pled here would not come within the scope of a -nuisance action which a majority of the Supreme Court would hold to be necessary to avoid governmental immunity. She would affirm the trial court’s grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant.
Nuisance — Intentional Nuisance — Governmental Immunity.
A majority of the Supreme Court has not voted to override prior precedent concerning the intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity; accordingly, claims of intentional nuisance remain not barred by governmental immunity.
Mark T. Light & Jan Paul Benedict, for plaintiffs.
Stanton, Bullen, Nelson, Moilanen & Klaasen, P.C. (by Charles A. Nelson), for defendant.

Opinion:
ON REMAND
Before: Cynar, P.J., and Mackenzie and Wahls, JJ.
Cynar, P.J.
Plaintiffs appealed as of right from an April 12, 1985, judgment of the circuit court granting the defendant's motion for summary judgment based on governmental immunity.
The Court of Appeals in its opinion of June 2, 1986, concluded that the plaintiffs had stated a claim upon which relief could be granted and reversed the grant of summary judgment in favor of defendant. This Court concluded that plaintiffs had stated a claim of intentional nuisance which avoided the defense of governmental immunity. Additionally, this Court concluded that plaintiffs' allegations of wilful and wanton misconduct were sufficient to remove this case from the scope of the recreational use act. This Court remanded the case for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. Garcia v City of Jackson, 152 Mich App 254; 393 NW2d 599 (1986). Defendant filed an application for leave to appeal with the Supreme Court.
The Supreme Court, in its order of August 25, 1986, stated that it had considered the certification by the Court of Appeals pursuant to Administrative Order 1984-2 that the decision in the instant case is in conflict with its decisions in Ford v Detroit, 91 Mich App 333; 283 NW2d 739 (1979), and Furness v Public Service Comm, 100 Mich App 365; 299 NW2d 35 (1980), but ordered that the accompanying application for leave to appeal was held in abeyance pending the decision in Rushing v Wayne Co (Docket No. 74724), Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm'r (Docket No. 75494), Veeneman v State of Michigan, (Docket No. 76815), Landry v Detroit (Docket No. 77011), and McCaul v Village of Lake Odessa (Docket No. 78233). The decisions in those cases having been issued on March 29, 1988, in Hadfield v Oakland Co Drain Comm'r, 430 Mich 139; 422 NW2d 205 (1988), the application was again considered and, pursuant to MCR 7.302(F)(1), in lieu of granting leave to appeal, the judgment of the Court of Appeals was vacated and the case was remanded to this Court for reconsideration in light of Hadfield. 430 Mich 877 (1988).
In its original opinion, this Court noted that plaintiffs appealed the trial court's finding that plaintiffs had failed to plead an intentional nuisance. Plaintiffs claimed that defendant intentionally created and maintained a structure that presented a danger to the public. The complaint further alleged that defendant knew of the specific danger since another boy had previously drowned in the vicinity of the box section and members of the public petitioned defendant to improve the dam. Plaintiffs cited several omissions on the part of defendant, including the failure to erect a grating over the conduit's opening, to provide proper warnings, and to implement safety regulations. The Court of Appeals concluded that the elements of intentional nuisance were sufficiently stated by the plaintiffs to avoid the defense of governmental immunity. Further, plaintiffs' allegations of wilful and wanton misconduct, if proved, would remove this case from the scope of the recreational use act.
It is difficult to extract the conclusion that there is no intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity since in Hadñeld, which is the last word on the matter, the majority of the justices did not vote to override prior precedent concerning the intentional nuisance exception to governmental immunity so as to establish any new binding precedent for future cases. There was a majority for the result only. Negri v Slotkin, 397 Mich 105; 244 NW2d 98 (1976); People v Mitchell, 428 Mich 364; 408 NW2d 798 (1987); Li v Wong (On Remand), 170 Mich App 256; 428 NW2d 36 (1988).
Further, the result and the language in Burnett v City of Adrian, 414 Mich 448; 326 NW2d 810 (1982), are strongly supportive of the conclusion that a case of wilful and wanton misconduct has been made out under the alleged facts in the case before us.
After much consideration, we reverse the trial court's dismissal of the intentional nuisance and wilful and wanton misconduct claims and remand to the trial court for further proceedings.
Reversed and remanded.
Wahls, J., concurred.
Before Bronson, P.J., and R. B. Burns and R. C. Kaufman, JJ.