Opinion ID: 2053552
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 5

Heading: Those statutes provide:

Text: (b) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle when responding to an emergency call, but not while returning from an emergency call, may exercise the privileges set forth in this section, subject to the conditions of this section. (c) The driver of an authorized emergency vehicle may: (1) Park or stand, irrespective of the provisions of this act. (2) Proceed past a red or stop signal or stop sign, but only after slowing down as may be necessary for safe operation. (3) Exceed the prima facie speed limits so long as he does not endanger life or property. (4) Disregard regulations governing direction of movement or turning in specified direction. (d) The exemptions granted in this section to an authorized emergency vehicle shall apply only when the driver of the vehicle while in motion sounds an audible signal by bell, siren, air horn, or exhaust whistle as may be reasonably necessary except as provided in subsection (e), and when the vehicle is equipped with at least 1 lighted lamp displaying a flashing, oscillating, or rotating red or blue light.... [M.C.L. § 257.603; M.S.A. § 9.2303 (emphasis added).] The speed limitation set forth in this chapter shall not apply to vehicles when operated with due regard for safety under the direction of the police when traveling in emergencies or in the chase or apprehension of violators of the law or of persons charged with or suspected of a violation, nor to fire department or fire patrol vehicles when traveling in response to a fire alarm, nor to public or private ambulances when traveling in emergencies.... This exemption shall not however protect the driver of the vehicle from the consequences of a reckless disregard of the safety of others. [M.C.L. § 257.632; M.S.A. § 9.2332 (emphasis added).] Subsections 603(c)(2) and (3) allow a driver of an emergency vehicle to proceed past stop signals and signs after slowing as may be necessary for safe operation. The driver may exceed the speed limit so long as he does not endanger life or property. According to Fiser, [t]he legislative' intent is expressed in these statutesemergency vehicles must be driven with due regard for the safety of others. Id. at 472, 339 N.W.2d 413. We infer from this language that a duty to innocent bystanders, onlookers, and travelers does exist. The Fiser Court stressed that abstract policy was not to be considered in cases of this type because the liability in question is statutory in nature. It stated: The defendants argue that a reversal of the decision of the Court of Appeals would be contrary to good public policy because it would have a chilling effect on the performance of police officers. Whatever the merits of defendants' argument, it is not for us to decide. The Legislature has determined the public policy embraced in M.C.L. §§ 257.603, 257.632, 691.1405; M.S.A. §§ 9.2303, 9.2332, 3.996(105), and, if the performance of police officers is chilled thereby, undoubtedly the Legislature was satisfied that a higher public good was served by enacting the statutes. Even if we were persuaded that the policy is unwise, we would not be free to change it. [ Id. at 475-476, 339 N.W.2d 413.] Fiser's deference to the Legislature did not go unnoticed by lobbyists for municipalities. In the wake of Fiser, House Bill 4003 was proposed. It would have amended § 5 of 1964 P.A. 170 and was described as: An act to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, when engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function, for injuries to property and persons; to define and limit this liability; to define and limit the liability of the state when engaged in a proprietary function; to authorize the purchase of liability insurance to protect against loss arising out of this liability; to provide for defending certain claims made against public officers and paying damages sought or awarded against them; to provide for the legal defense of public officers and employees; to provide for reimbursement of public officers and employees for certain legal expenses; and to repeal certain acts and parts of acts, being section 691.1405 of the Michigan Compiled Laws. The Legislature rejected House Bill 4003, and, in the 1986 revisions of the governmental immunity statute, retained the language of M.C.L. § 691.1405; M.S.A. § 3.996(105) that was interpreted in Fiser. Against this backdrop, we reject defendants' request to overrule Fiser. Here, the statutory meaning is clear on its face. Therefore, the role of the judiciary is not to articulate its view of policy, but to apply the statute in accord with its plain language. Lorencz v. Ford Motor Co., 439 Mich. 370, 376, 483 N.W.2d 844 (1992). Also, where legislation has been authoritatively construed by the courts, then retained by the Legislature, we will find legislative concurrence. Magreta v. Ambassador Steel Co., 380 Mich. 513, 520, 158 N.W.2d 473 (1968). Defendants argue that Fiser was overruled sub silentio by Ross v. Consumers Power (On Rehearing), 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641 (1984). We disagree. The contention that Fiser was overruled misapprehends the meaning of Ross. The discretionary/ministerial test of Ross applied only to the common-law liability of individual employees, not to the statutory liability of governmental agencies. Ross held that neither that decision nor M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107) detracts from a city's liability under M.C.L. § 691.1405; M.S.A. § 3.996(105), as applied to police pursuits in Fiser. Ross, supra at 591, [15] 593-594, [16] 620-622, 363 N.W.2d 641. [17] We find that Ross could not and did not overrule Fiser. Thus, we conclude that Fiser remains good law in Michigan, and that the proofs under each of the cases at hand establish a cause of action submissible to a jury. Our decision in Fiser expressly states that claims of negligence and proximate cause are to be submitted to and decided by a trier of fact and not by summary disposition. Id. at 471-476, 339 N.W.2d 413. Defendants, having failed to distinguish their cases from Fiser, have not persuaded us to overrule our decision in Fiser. We further decline to narrow our findings in Fiser and believe that any limitation in liability must come from the Legislature.