Case Name: CALLAHAN v. STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1985-08-22
Citations: 146 Mich. App. 235
Docket Number: Docket No. 85069
Parties: CALLAHAN v STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN
Judges: Before: Beasley, P.J., and Allen and J. H. Gillis, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 146
Pages: 235–238

Head Matter:
CALLAHAN v STATE PRISON OF SOUTHERN MICHIGAN
Docket No. 85069.
Submitted May 22, 1985, at Lansing.
Decided August 22, 1985.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Gregory Callahan, an inmate of the State Prison of Southern Michigan, filed a complaint against the prison in the Court of Claims alleging that upon entering the prison he surrendered a gold neck chain valued in excess of $3000 to prison officials for safe keeping, that he received a receipt for the chain, and that three years later when he decided to have the chain shipped to a family member it was discovered that the chain had been taken and replaced with an imitation worth no more than $5. Defendant moved for summary judgment, claiming that plaintiffs allegations were a disguised claim in tort subject to the defense of governmental immunity. The court, Jack W. Warren, J., ruled that the defense of governmental immunity was available where, in the operation and maintenance of a correctional facility, an admittedly governmental function, theft or conversion is alleged and entered an order dismissing plaintiffs complaint. Plaintiff appealed. In an unpublished per curiam opinion the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded, finding that the commission of a wrongful act is not a governmental function and that governmental immunity therefore was not applicable. Defendant sought leave to appeal to the Supreme Court, which, in lieu of granting leave to appeal, remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984). 422 Mich 889 (1985). After reconsideration, held:
An employer’s liability for the illegal acts of its employees generally can be imposed only where the individual tortfeasor acted during the course of his or her employment and within the scope of his or her authority. While prison employees were during the course of their employment when they took the chain for storage purposes, they clearly were not acting within the scope of their employment when they allegedly stole the chain. Thus, even if a prison employee did steal the chain, that criminality is not attributable to the prison so as to deprive it of its governmental immunity.
References for Points in Headnote
Am Jur 2d, Municipal, School, and State Tort Liability § 88.
Modern status of rule excusing governmental unit from tort liability on theory that only general, not particular, duty was owed under circumstances. 3 ALR4th 1194.
The trial court’s order dismissing plaintiffs complaint is affirmed.
Torts — Governmental Immunity — Respondeat Superior.
Respondeat superior liability generally can be imposed only where the individual tortfeasor acted during the course of his or her employment and within the scope of his or her authority; if either of these conditions is not met, a governmental agency cannot be held vicariously liable for the employee’s criminality so as to deprive the agency of its governmental immunity.
Gregory Callahan, in propria persona.
Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Louis J. Caruso, Solicitor General, and Thomas A. Kulick, Assistant Attorney General, for defendant.
Before: Beasley, P.J., and Allen and J. H. Gillis, JJ.

Opinion:
Per Curiam.
This case returns to us by order of the Supreme Court dated May 13, 1985, vacating the judgment of this Court and remanding "for reconsideration in light of Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing) [420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984)]". 422 Mich 889 (1985). We affirm the judgment of the trial court and enter judgment for defendant.
This matter was first heard by us on oral argument in May, 1984. The question involved was whether the defense of governmental immunity was available where, in the operation and maintenance of a correctional facility, an admittedly governmental function, theft or conversion is alleged. The trial court had answered that question in the affirmative and on September 17, 1982, had entered an order dismissing plaintiffs complaint. In an unpublished per curiam opinion issued October 3,1984, the majority held:
"[T]his case falls squarely within Lawrence [v Dept of Corrections, 81 Mich App 234; 265 NW2d 104 (1978)]. The commission of a wrongful act both is not and should not be a governmental function. Accordingly, we find that governmental immunity is not a defense to plaintiffs complaint ánd reverse the judgment of the trial court and remand for a hearing on the merits."