Opinion ID: 843020
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 6

Heading: the remaining robinson factors support upholding hobbs and brown

Text: Even if a majority of this Court disagrees with the reasoning of Hobbs and Brown, a mere belief that these cases were wrongly decided is insufficient to justify overruling them. Other considerations must be weighed before departing from precedent. In particular, under Robinson, this Court must also decide whether Hobbs and Brown defy practical workability, whether reliance interests would cause an undue hardship, and whether changes in the law or facts no longer justify Hobbs and Brown. Robinson, supra at 464, 613 N.W.2d 307. A study of these remaining Robinson factors shows that they weigh in favor of upholding Hobbs and Brown. The rule that the government must show actual prejudice was suffered from lack of notice does not defy practical workability. Indeed, this rule has been followed and enforced for over 30 years. In that span, litigants, attorneys, and courts have been able to apply Hobbs and Brown to the cases before them. Reliance interests of these parties also support upholding these cases. While a plaintiff is unlikely to deliberately withhold notice longer than 120 days for the sheer purpose of using the Hobbs rule, these plaintiffs should not be our only concern. We must also consider the effect of our decision on injured parties who have sought legal counsel to determine whether they have a valid claim. For example, reliance interests are involved when a plaintiff consults with an attorney and initiates a claim more than 120 days after an injury, having been informed by his attorney that the claim may survive if the government has suffered no prejudice from the delay. Similarly, attorneys who have counseled clients that their claims may still be valid have relied on Hobbs and Brown in accepting cases and dispensing advice. Finally, there have been no changes in the law or factual circumstances that render Hobbs and Brown unjustifiable. The Legislature has not amended § 1404 since 1972. The Hobbs rule has been an established part of the governmental tort liability scheme for over three decades. Brown examined Hobbs and upheld its rule just over ten years ago. Any relevant changes are entirely internal to this Court. Applying the Robinson factors here shows that the principles of stare decisis outweigh the arguments for overruling Hobbs. Under the doctrine of stare decisis, principles of law deliberately examined and decided by a court of competent jurisdiction become precedent and should not be lightly departed. People v. Jamieson, 436 Mich. 61, 79, 461 N.W.2d 884 (1990). Absent the rarest circumstances, we should remain faithful to established precedent. Brown, supra at 365, 550 N.W.2d 215. Reaffirming Hobbs and Brown would promote uniformity, certainty, and stability in the law.