Opinion ID: 837891
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: application of the ross test to this current case

Text: Following the guidelines set forth in this opinion, we first note that defendant indisputably is a lower-level government employee not entitled to the absolute immunity provided by MCL 691.1407(5). It is equally clear that plaintiff pleaded intentional, rather than negligent, torts. Plaintiff asserted claims of false imprisonment and malicious prosecution, both of which contain intent as an element. [67] Contrary to the trial court's opinion, a plaintiff need not plead a forceful or physical act, such as use of excessive force, but must plead only an intentional act. As plaintiff pleaded the occurrence of intentional torts, the trial court was required to determine whether defendant was entitled to governmental immunity as provided by the common law before July 7, 1986. Defendant timely raised governmental immunity as an affirmative defense in her first responsive pleading, as well as raising it in her motion for summary disposition. To be entitled to governmental immunity, defendant must establish that she was acting in the course of her employment and at least reasonably believed that she was acting within the scope of her authority, that her actions were discretionary in nature, and that she acted in good faith. Because it used the wrong legal standard, the trial court did not address these questions, finding only that there remained a question of fact whether defendant lacked probable cause to detain or arrest plaintiff. The mere existence of probable cause, however, is not the proper inquiry. A police officer would be entitled to immunity under Ross if he acted in good faith and honestly believed that he had probable cause to arrest, even if he later learned that he was mistaken. [68] Yet the existence of probable cause is relevant to the analysis; a claim of false arrest or false imprisonment cannot be sustained if the arrest was legal. [69] The Court of Appeals held that there remained a question of fact whether defendant's conduct was justified and objectively reasonable. This objective analysis is also not the proper Ross inquiry. The good-faith element of the Ross test is subjective in nature. It protects a defendant's honest belief and good-faith conduct with the cloak of immunity while exposing to liability a defendant who acts with malicious intent. [70] On remand, the trial court must reconsider defendant's motion for summary disposition in light of the Ross test and determine if defendant adequately supported her claim of governmental immunity.