Opinion ID: 842398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 11

Heading: sewell v. southfield pub schools

Text: In Sewell, this Court again stated that a building may be dangerous or defective because of improper design. [4] We held that the grant of summary disposition to the defendant was improper because the plaintiff had sufficiently alleged a dangerous condition arising from faulty construction and improper design. Sewell, 456 Mich. at 671-672, 576 N.W.2d 153. [5] Therefore, the frequently repeated proposition that design defect claims fall within the public building exception to governmental immunity has become a bedrock of Michigan jurisprudence. The majority distracts attention from this fact by citing cases that this Court resolved without determining whether there was a design defect. See Hickey v. Zezulka (On Resubmission), 439 Mich. 408, 487 N.W.2d 106 (1992); de Sanchez v. Michigan Dep't of Mental Health, 455 Mich. 83, 565 N.W.2d 358 (1997); Johnson v. Detroit, 457 Mich. 695, 579 N.W.2d 895 (1998). However, in none of those cases did this Court overrule Bush or Sewell and hold that design defects do not fall within the public building exception. Rather, two of them, Hickey and Johnson, cited Bush for the proposition that a building may be defective because of improper design. Hickey, 439 Mich. at 422, 487 N.W.2d 106; Johnson, 457 Mich. at 704, 579 N.W.2d 895. This Court in de Sanchez noted that it is an oft-cited proposition that a public building may be dangerous or defective because of its improper design[.] de Sanchez, 455 Mich. at 96, 565 N.W.2d 358. [6] Moreover, Hickey and de Sanchez were decided before Sewell. If there had been any question about whether a design defect claim could be brought under the public building exception, Sewell resolved it. Also, it should be noted that, had the Legislature disagreed with this Court's interpretation of MCL 691.1406, it had many years to amend the language of the statute. Its failure to do so suggests that the Legislature's intent was that a design defect claim be actionable under the public building exception to governmental immunity. [7]