Opinion ID: 842398
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 12

Heading: the robinson [8] factors

Text: Because it erroneously characterizes the holding in Bush as dictum, the majority finds no need to consider the factors set forth in Robinson for deciding whether to overturn Bush. Robinson, 462 Mich. at 464, 613 N.W.2d 307. But Bush 's holding that design defects are actionable under the public building exception was not dictum. Therefore, I will now review the Robinson factors. The first consideration is whether the earlier decision was wrongly decided. Robinson, 462 Mich. at 464, 613 N.W.2d 307. I believe it was not. As discussed above, implicit in a duty to maintain and repair a public building is a duty to properly design the building. Therefore, I believe that Bush properly interpreted the public building exception as including a duty to design public buildings to be safe. Moreover, the Legislature has acquiesced in Bush 's interpretation of MCL 691.1406. This suggests that Bush correctly interpreted the statute to mean that a design defect claim is actionable. The other Robinson factors are: (1) whether the decision at issue defies practical workability, (2) whether reliance interests would work an undue hardship if the authority is overturned, and (3) whether changes in the law or facts make the decision no longer justified. Robinson, 462 Mich. at 464, 613 N.W.2d 307. Bush does not defy practical workability. Rather, it has functioned as an integral part of our governmental immunity jurisprudence for the past 28 years. Conversely, reliance interests would work an undue hardship if Bush were overturned. As indicated above, it is a frequently cited proposition that design defect claims fall within the public building exception. [9] Clearly, overturning Bush will mark a drastic shift in Michigan jurisprudence. No changes in the law or the facts render the decision unjustified. It is true that, in deciding Bush, the Court relied on the structural similarity between the public building exception and the highway exception statutes. Bush, 405 Mich. at 730, 275 N.W.2d 268. It is also true that the Court in Hanson v. Mecosta Co. Rd. Comm'rs, 465 Mich. 492, 502, 638 N.W.2d 396 (2002), held that the highway exception does not include a duty to design or correct defects arising from the original design of highways. However, Hanson is not on point with this case. Hanson concerned the highway exception, whereas this case concerns the public building exception. Especially considering that Hanson, in my estimation, was incorrectly decided, its holding should not be extended to the public building exception. [10] The majority also claims that Bush has been undermined by subsequent decisions of this Court. The majority notes that Bush was succeeded by Ross v. Consumers Power Co. (On Rehearing ), [11] which altered the way this Court construes the governmental immunity statute. However, Ross did not overrule Bush. Moreover, Reardon and Sewell were decided after Bush and Ross. Neither Reardon nor Sewell determined that Ross affected Bush 's holding that defective designs are actionable under the public building exception. In fact, Reardon quoted Ross in order to explain the Legislature's rationale for enacting the governmental immunity act. Reardon, 430 Mich. at 408, 424 N.W.2d 248. Reardon then reiterated the Bush holding that defective designs are actionable under the public building exception. The majority also contends that Fane v. Detroit Library Comm . [12] undermines Bush. However, nothing in Fane undermines Bush 's holding that design defects are actionable under the public building exception. Fane interpreted the meaning of the phrase of a building in the public building exception. Fane, 465 Mich. at 77-78, 631 N.W.2d 678. Fane did not interpret the phrase repair and maintain.