Opinion ID: 837891
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 3

Heading: Test for Immunity Outlined in Ross

Text: The seminal pre-July 7, 1986, case defining the parameters of governmental immunity for individuals from tort liability is Ross v. Consumers Power Co. (On Rehearing ). Over the years, substantial confusion has arisen regarding the proper interpretation of the Ross test for individual governmental immunity as it is applied to intentional torts. A number of cases have either misinterpreted or failed to mention Ross in holding that there is no intentional-tort exception to governmental immunity. [31] We correct today this tangle of cases arising after the enactment of the current GTLA by following the legislative direction to apply the common law as it existed before July 7, 1986. [32] Ross comprehensively stated the common-law test in Michigan for individual governmental-employee immunity before the statutory date. Contrary to defendant's position, Ross clearly provides governmental employees qualified immunity from intentional-tort liability at common law. We take this opportunity to reaffirm and restate the Ross test. [33] Under Ross, to be immune from liability for intentional torts, the governmental employee must first establish that the acts were taken during the course of ... employment and that the employee was acting, or reasonably believe[d] [he was] acting, within the scope of [his] authority[.] [34] This requirement ensures that a governmental employee will not be afforded immunity when committing ultra vires acts, as these are outside the scope of the employee's authority. [35] However, it also protects a governmental employee who reasonably believes that he was authorized to take certain actions, but later learns that he was mistaken. [36] The governmental employee must also establish that he was acting in good faith. Ross did not elaborate on this element, relying instead on Prosser on Torts and the cases cited therein. [37] Prosser noted that the considerable majority of the state courts take the position that there is no immunity where the inferior officer does not act honestly and in good faith, but maliciously, or for an improper purpose. [38] [O]fficial immunity should not become a cloak for malicious, corrupt, and otherwise outrageous conduct on the part of those guilty of intentional abuse of power.... [39] The cases cited by Prosser indicate that there is no immunity when the governmental employee acts maliciously or with a wanton or reckless disregard of the rights of another. [40] This standard is also consistent with prior Michigan caselaw. In Armstrong v. Ross Twp, [41] the Court of Appeals described good faith simply as acting without malice. In Blackman v. Cooper, [42] the Court of Appeals held that a police officer is entitled to immunity when he is acting in good faith with probable cause ... even though the arrest is subsequently found to be baseless. In Dickey v. Fluhart, [43] the Court of Appeals held that an action may lie only if the officer has utilized wanton or malicious conduct or demonstrated a reckless indifference to the common dictates of humanity. This Court has described a lack of good faith as malicious intent, capricious action or corrupt conduct [44] or willful and corrupt misconduct.... [45] In Firestone v. Rice, [46] in which the plaintiff brought an action for false imprisonment and assault and battery against a police officer for handcuffing him, the Court held: There must be some discretion reposed in a sheriff or other officer, making an arrest for felony, as to the means taken to apprehend the supposed offender, and to keep him safe and secure after such apprehension. And this discretion cannot be passed upon by a court or jury unless it has been abused through malice or wantonness or a reckless indifference to the common dictates of humanity. In addition, this Court has held that willful and wanton misconduct is made out only if the conduct alleged shows an intent to harm or, if not that, such indifference to whether harm will result as to be the equivalent of a willingness that it does. [47] Similarly, our standard civil jury instructions define willful misconduct as conduct or a failure to act that was intended to harm the plaintiff [48] and wanton misconduct as conduct or a failure to act that shows such indifference to whether harm will result as to be equal to a willingness that harm will result. [49] These instructions are consistent with the negation of the common-law definition of good faith and can be a useful guide for a trial court considering a defendant's motion for summary disposition based on individual governmental immunity. Thus, the proponent of individual immunity must establish that he acted without malice. The final Ross element to be considered when determining whether an individual is entitled to governmental immunity is whether the challenged act was ministerial or discretionary in nature. As explained in Ross, `A ministerial officer has a line of conduct marked out for him, and has nothing to do but to follow it; and he must be held liable for any failure to do so which results in the injury of another.' [50] Ministerial acts constitute merely an obedience to orders or the performance of a duty in which the individual has little or no choice. [51] The execution of an act once a decision has been made is also ministerial in nature. [52] Discretion, on the other hand, `implies the right to be wrong.' [53] Discretionary acts require personal deliberation, decision and judgment. [54] Although the decision need not be extraordinary, governmental immunity is not afforded for every trivial decision an actor may make. [55] Granting immunity to an employee engaged in discretionary acts allows the employee to resolve problems without constant fear of legal repercussions. [56] Police officers perform many discretionary acts each day. An officer must use his judgment to determine whether there is reasonable suspicion to investigate or probable cause to arrest and to determine the amount of force necessary to effectuate an arrest. A police officer similarly conducts many ministerial acts each day, such as completing activity logs and police reports or following the procedures for booking an arrested person.