Opinion ID: 849010
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: ross v consumers power co

Text: The Ross decision dealt with the use of the word state in the GTLA . It held that its placement there presented a clear conflict with the purpose and title of the act. We faced the same dilemma over § 135 of the act. That section also used the word state to describe immunity: The immunity of the state shall not apply to actions to recover for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the performance of a proprietary function . . . [Former MCL 691.1413, as enacted by 1964 PA 170.] 4 The majority states that it makes no ruling with regard to the state's immunity. However, when it tries to resolve a conflict between its interpretation of § 7 and the TitleObject Clause, Const 1963, art 4, § 24, it interprets § 7 as reserving exceptions only to the state's sovereign immunity. Under that interpretation, no sentence in the GTLA reserves common-law exceptions to the governmental function immunity of the state. Therefore, while the state is not a party to this action, the majority opinion still carries serious implications for the state's sovereign immunity. 5 MCL 691.1413. 5 The Court took the exception for the state and applied it to all governmental entities. It rejected the plain meaning of § 13 because, so read, it would have limited the proprietary function exception to the state and its agencies, departments, and commissions. The Court declined to find that restriction in the act because it was clearly not what the Legislature intended. It observed: The governmental immunity act was intended to provide uniform liability and immunity to both state and local governmental agencies. A strict expressio unius est exclusio alterius reading of § 13 would destroy this uniformity. [Ross, supra at 614.] The Court concluded that restricting § 13 to state government would run contrary to the goal and intent of the act, namely, a uniform system of liability and immunity. Moreover, it would abolish a longstanding exception to common-law immunity without the presence of any clear indications of legislative intent to do so. The Legislature codified this Court's reading of § 13 of the act two years later by substituting the words governmental agency for the word state.