Case Name: BOULET v. BRUNSWICK CORPORATION
Court: Michigan Court of Appeals
Jurisdiction: Michigan
Decision Date: 1983-06-06
Citations: 126 Mich. App. 240
Docket Number: Docket No. 61773
Parties: BOULET v BRUNSWICK CORPORATION
Judges: Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and V. J. Brennan and Wahls, JJ.
Reporter: Michigan appeals reports; cases decided in the Michigan Court of Appeals.
Volume: 126
Pages: 240–251

Head Matter:
BOULET v BRUNSWICK CORPORATION
Docket No. 61773.
Submitted October 14, 1982, at Detroit.
Decided June 6, 1983.
Leave to appeal applied for.
Laurent Boulet, individually and as next friend of David Boulet, brought an action against the Brunswick Corporation, Lawrence Kaye, Mel Anderson, and others, for damages for injuries sustained in a high school football game which left David Boulet a quadriplegic. In a prior appeal to this Court venue in this action was determined to lie in the Macomb Circuit Court. 107 Mich App 589 (1981). Thereafter, the Macomb Circuit Court granted defendants Lawrence Kaye and Mel Anderson’s motion for summary judgment on the basis that as the head and assistant coaches of David Boulet’s public school team they were immune from suit because of governmental immunity. Plaintiffs appeal alleging that the trial court, George R. Deneweth, J., erred in granting the motion and judgment. Held:
1. The trial court did not err in granting the summary judgment. A public school is entitled to governmental immunity in the operation of its athletic program, including the administration and supervision of a football program. Teachers and supervisors of the programs are entitled to governmental immunity when they have performed their duties within the scope of their employment.
2. A physical education program, as part of the general curriculum or as an extracurricular activity, is in furtherance of and an integral part of the total public education provided to students.
3. Even though a football program could be administered and provided for by the private sector the school, teáchers, and supervisors are entitled to governmental immunity when such a program is provided as part of a public school education.
References for Points in Headnotes
[1, 3, 8, 9] 57 Am Jur 2d, Municipal, School, and State Tort Liability §12.
68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 319 et seq.
Modern status of doctrine of sivereign immunity as applied to public schools and institutions of higher learning. 33 ALR3d 703.
[2] 68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 283.
[4-9] 68 Am Jur 2d, Schools § 5.
Affirmed.
T. M. Burns, P.J., dissented and would hold:
1. Under the present test for determining whether or not governmental immunity protects an individual or an entity courts ask first whether or not the particular activity is a governmental function and then whether or not the activity falls within the exercise or discharge of that function.
2. The operation of an extracurricular football program by a public high school does not fit within Justice Moody’s "effectively accomplished only by the government” test for governmental immunity.
3. Football is not a part of education qua education and is by no means essential to a school’s operation.
4. Governmental immunity should not be applied when the governmental function involved is clearly tangential to government itself.
5. The operation of a public high school junior varsity football program only tenuously relates to the government’s essential purpose of promoting public justice and a ruling that governmental immunity does not apply in this case would not impair either the school’s or the government’s ability to provide public justice.
He would reverse.
Opinion op the Court
1. Schools — Athletic Programs — Torts — Governmental Immunity.
A public school is entitled to governmental immunity in the operation of its athletic program, including the administration and supervision of a football program; teachers and supervisors of the programs are entitled to governmental immunity when they have performed their duties within the scope of their employment.
2. Schools — Athletic Programs.
A physical education program, as part of the general curriculum or as an extracurricular activity, is in furtherance of and an integral part of the total public education provided to students.
3. Schools — Athletic Programs — Football Programs — Governmental Immunity.
A public school and its teachers and supervisors are entitled to governmental immunity in cases resulting from the operation of a football program provided as part of a public school education even though a football program could be administered and provided for by the private sector.
Dissent by T. M. Burns, P. J.
4. Governmental Immunity — Test — Governmental Functions.
Michigan’s courts, in determining whether or not governmental immunity protects an individual or an entity, ask ñrst whether or not the particular activity is a governmental function and then whether or not the activity falls within the exercise or discharge of that governmental function.
5. Governmental Immunity — Governmental Functions — Test.
The determination of whether an activity constitutes a governmental function should be founded upon the inquiry whether the purpose, planning, and carrying out of the activity, due to its unique character or governmental mandate, can be effectively accomplished only by the government; unless liability would be an unacceptable interference with government’s ability to govern, activities that fall outside this perimeter, although performed by a government agency, are not governmental functions and therefore not immune from liability.
6. Governmental Immunity — Public Schools.
A public school’s operations constitute a governmental function, however, not every activity carried out by a school system is automatically entitled to governmental immunity and thus courts are to focus on the relevant particular activity to determine whether or not it is a governmental function protected by governmental immunity.
7. Governmental Immunity — Public Schools — Extracurricular Football Programs.
The operation of an extracurricular football program by a public high school is not an activity which may be effectively accomplished only by the government; football is not a part of education qua education and is not essential to a school’s operation.
8. Governmental Immunity — Functions Tangential to Government.
Governmental immunity should not be applied when the governmental function involved is clearly tangential to government itself.
9. Governmental Immunity — Government’s Essential Purpose — Public Justice — Public Schools — Extracurricular Football Programs.
The essential purpose of government is to promote public justice; the providing of a public education furthers this goal, however, a high school junior varsity football program only tenuously relates to this purpose and, therefore, a decision to deny governmental immunity to the operation of such a program would not impair either the school’s or the government’s ability to provide public justice.
Frimet, Bellamy, Gilchrist & Lites, P.C. (by Frederick B. Bellamy and Dan Ellis Champney), for plaintiffs.
Ogne, Jinks, Ecclestone & Alberts, P.C. (by Wayne L. Ogne and Bryan Cermak), for Lawrence Kaye and Mel Anderson.
Before: T. M. Burns, P.J., and V. J. Brennan and Wahls, JJ.

Opinion:
V. J. Brennan, J.
The facts are set forth in the dissenting opinion. The sole issue for our consideration is whether the trial court erred in granting defendants Lawrence Kaye and Mel Anderson's motion for summary judgment on the basis that they were immune from suit because of governmental immunity. MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107).
We find no error on the part of the trial court. A public school in the operation of its athletic program, including the administration and supervision of a football program, is entitled to governmental immunity. Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32; 306 NW2d 381 (1981). Further, teachers and supervisors of the programs are entitled to governmental immunity when they have performed their duties within the scope of their employment. Regulski v Murphy, 119 Mich App 418; 326 NW2d 528 (1982). A physical educa-
tion program, as part of the general curriculum or as an extracurricular activity, is in furtherance of and an integral part of the total public education provided to students. While we recognize that there are football programs that exist through private organizations, we find that this fact alone does not preclude a finding that a public school or its teachers are entitled to governmental immunity in cases such as the present one where a football program is offered by a school that is otherwise entitled to governmental immunity where other programs are involved. In Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183, 200; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), Justice Moody noted that, "it would be incongrous to find that the operational activities of some public agencies are other than governmental. Likewise, conceivably there could be essential governmental activity which would have some common analogy in the private sector." We find that even though a football program could be administered and provided for by the private sector, when these programs are provided as part of a public school education, the school, teachers, and supervisors are entitled to governmental immunity. Grames v King, 123 Mich App 573; 332 NW2d 615 (1983).
Affirmed.
Wahls, J., concurred.