Opinion ID: 1711211
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Hobbs Is Reaffirmed

Text: We do not agree with the conclusion of the dissenting opinion that Hobbs should be overruled; rather, the doctrine of stare decisis mandates its reaffirmance. [17] Additionally, despite the Legislature's ability to change the statutory language or disapprove of this Court's interpretation of § 4, it has acquiesced in the Hobbs decision for nearly twenty years. This Court has stated on many occasions that `[u]nder the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction should not be lightly departed.' Boyd v. W G Wade Shows, 443 Mich. 515, 525, n. 15, 505 N.W.2d 544 (1993), quoting People v. Jamieson, 436 Mich. 61, 79, 461 N.W.2d 884 (1990). Further, this Court has stated that it will not overrule a decision deliberately made unless [it] is convinced not merely that the case was wrongly decided, but also that less injury would result from overruling than from following it. Boyd at 524, 505 N.W.2d 544 (citation omitted). Moreover, this Court has consistently opined that, absent the rarest circumstances, we should remain faithful to established precedent. We have stated: The rule of stare decisis establishes uniformity, certainty, and stability in the law.... Only in the rare case when it is clearly apparent that an error has been made, or changing conditions result in injustice by the application of an outmoded rule, should we deviate from following the established rule. [ People v. Collins, 438 Mich. 8, 41-42, 475 N.W.2d 684 (1991) (Cavanagh, C.J., dissenting), quoting Parker v. Port Huron Hosp., 361 Mich. 1, 10, 105 N.W.2d 1 (1960).] With these principles in mind, we do not believe that Hobbs should be overruled. When this Court decided Hobbs in 1976, it carefully examined the notice provision and the reasons justifying it. In that case, this Court deliberately decided that actual prejudice to the governmental agency resulting from lack of notice within 120 days was the only legitimate purpose it could posit for the notice provision. Further, this Court deliberately decided that, unless actual prejudice is shown, the plaintiff's claim is not barred by failure to give notice within the requisite period. We are not convinced that Hobbs was wrongly decided. Further, we believe that more injury would result from overruling it than from following it. The rule in Hobbs has been an integral part of this state's governmental tort liability scheme for almost two decades. It should not be lightly discarded. Although the law of governmental tort liability in this state has changed over the years, the continued validity of the Hobbs rule will not result in injustice. Rather, a reaffirmance of the rule will maintain the uniformity, certainty, and stability in the law of this state. Further, we emphasize that the Legislature has not changed the language of § 4 since Hobbs was decided. [18] For decades, this Court has recognized that stare decisis applies to decisions construing statutes, especially where the Legislature acquiesces in this Court's construction by its failure to change the language of the construed statute. See Boyd at 525, 505 N.W.2d 544, citing Consumers Power Co. v. Muskegon Co., 346 Mich. 243, 78 N.W.2d 223 (1956). Further, this Court has stated: When, over a period of many years, the Legislature has acquiesced in this Court's construction of a statute, the judicial power to change that interpretation ought to be exercised with great restraint. On more than one occasion our Court has quoted with approval the statement that stare decisis `is especially applicable where the construction placed on a statute by previous decisions has been long acquiesced in by the legislature, by its continued use or failure to change the language of the statute so construed, the power to change the law as interpreted being regarded, in such circumstances, as one to be exercised solely by the legislature.' [ Boyd at 525-526, 505 N.W.2d 544, quoting Dean v. Chrysler Corp., 434 Mich. 655, 664, 455 N.W.2d 699 (1990), quoting Consumers Power Co. v. Muskegon Co . at 251, 78 N.W.2d 223, quoting 21 CJS, Courts, § 214, pp 388-390. See also In re Clayton Estate, 343 Mich. 101, 107, 72 N.W.2d 1 (1955).] Because the Legislature has not reacted to this Court's interpretation of § 4 in the nearly twenty years since Hobbs was decided, we conclude that the Legislature has acquiesced in our interpretation of the statute. Smith v. Detroit, 388 Mich. 637, 650, 202 N.W.2d 300 (1972). Apparently, the Legislature has been content with the way this Court has interpreted § 4. [19]