Opinion ID: 842360
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: application of mack and the doctrine of governmental immunity

Text: In Mack, this Court held that governmental immunity is a characteristic of government. Mack v. Detroit, 467 Mich. 186, 190, 649 N.W.2d 47 (2002). It is no longer an affirmative defense. The party seeking to impose liability on a governmental agency has the burden of pleading in avoidance of governmental immunity. Id. at 198, 649 N.W.2d 47. This Court also held in Mack that, without express legislative authorization, a cause of action cannot be created in contravention of the broad scope of governmental immunity. Id. at 196, 649 N.W.2d 47. The presumption [under the governmental tort liability act (GTLA) [2] ] is, therefore, that a governmental agency is immune and can only be subject to suit if a plaintiff's case falls within a statutory exception. Id. at 201, 649 N.W.2d 47 (emphasis in original). Following the rationale of Mack, the majority's holding that governmental immunity applies in this case is correct. As the majority notes, political subdivisions such as defendant enjoy immunity from tort liability under the GTLA. [3] And none of the six discrete areas [4] in which the GTLA permits a cause of action to be brought applies in this case. Moreover, there is no express authorization permitting a private cause of action against a public employer for violation of MCL 15.602(2). Therefore, under the rationale in Mack, governmental immunity applies to bar plaintiff's action. Whenever governmental immunity applies, in accordance with Mack, a plaintiff must plead in avoidance of governmental immunity. Mack, supra at 198, 649 N.W.2d 47. In this case, plaintiff did not mention the doctrine in his pleadings or at any point in these proceedings. Accordingly, it is of no legal consequence whether the residency requirement violated MCL 15.602 or whether the statute implies a private cause of action. However, the majority avoids acknowledging the dominant effect that governmental immunity has on this case and instead purports to hold, in addition, that (1) defendant's residency requirement contravenes MCL 15.602(2) and (2) plaintiff may not maintain a private cause of action for money damages for a violation of the statute. In my view, since the presumption of governmental immunity was never rebutted, it remains and utterly governs the case. The majority's conclusions on other issues is nothing but dicta. [5]