Opinion ID: 1713041
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: retroactivity of ross

Text: Our first task is to determine what case law is applicable in each case. Prior to Parker, the operation of a public general hospital was considered a governmental function under both common law and § 7 of the governmental immunity act. See Parker, 404 Mich 190-191; Martinson v Alpena, 328 Mich 595; 44 NW2d 148 (1950); Nicholson v Detroit, 129 Mich 246; 88 NW 695 (1902). Parker rejected this well-established case law and concluded that a public general hospital can be held liable for torts committed during its day-to-day operations. Although Parker did not state whether its new rule of law should be given retroactive effect, the question was resolved in Murray v Beyer Memorial Hospital : [T]he rule of Parker is to be applied to all cases pending on December 27, 1978, in which an express challenge to the defense of governmental immunity was made and preserved as well as all cases started after that date. [409 Mich 221.] The Court justified this limited retroactive application as follows: Defendant [hospital] ... urges that Parker v Highland Park, supra , be applied prospectively from the date the opinion was released and not cover other cases pending on that date. We are satisfied that the adventitious disposition of Parker while we held plaintiffs' application in abeyance should not deprive plaintiffs of the benefit of the rule or make available to defendant a defense we will no longer enforce for others. We acknowledge that whenever a new rule of law is promulgated some unfairness to those who have relied on the old rule may be claimed. Courts, however, do not alter an established rule of law without thorough evaluation of the policy considerations involved. When the decision to overrule precedent is finally made, the Court is satisfied that the importance of the result reached outweighs any unfairness to those negatively affected by the decision. Applying the ruling prospectively with the exception of that case and cases pending on appeal in which the issue was raised and preserved is an attempt to limit any such unfairness. [ Id., pp 222-223.][ [9] ]