Opinion ID: 2024216
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Governmental Immunity Principles

Text: As we recently reiterated in Horace v. City of Pontiac, 456 Mich. 744, 749, 575 N.W.2d 762 (1998), the term governmental function is to be broadly construed, and the statutory exceptions thereto, including the public building exception, are to be narrowly construed. To come within the narrow confines of this exception, a plaintiff must prove that (1) a governmental agency is involved, (2) the public building in question was open for use by members of the public, (3) a dangerous or defective condition of the public building itself exists, (4) the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect, and (5) the governmental agency failed to remedy the alleged defective condition after a reasonable period or failed to take action reasonably necessary to protect the public against the condition after a reasonable period. M.C.L. § 691.1406; M.S.A. § 3.996(106); Jackson v. Detroit, 449 Mich. 420, 428, 537 N.W.2d 151 (1995). [4] The issue in the case at bar involves the proper understanding and application of the second element, i.e., whether the public building was open for use by members of the public. [5]