Opinion ID: 848788
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: Summary of case law

Text: A review of case law in this area offers guidance. [6] In Dudek v. Michigan, 152 Mich.App. 81, 393 N.W.2d 572 (1986), a state mental-health facility was being renovated. A construction worker was injured when a cement block fell from a building. The Court of Appeals held that the public-building exception did not apply because the entire construction area was closed off by a fence, and only authorized personnel could enter. In Griffin, supra, a resident of a public-housing facility drowned in her bathtub. The Court of Appeals held that the public-building exception did not apply because the dwelling unit was not open for use by members of the public. It was open for use by the decedent as her private residence under the lease agreement. Id. at 306, 443 N.W.2d 406. In Taylor v. Detroit, 182 Mich.App. 583, 452 N.W.2d 826 (1989), a boy was electrocuted after breaking into a locked electrical substation in an abandoned section of a public-housing project. The Court of Appeals held that the substation was not open for use by members of the public. Here, only authorized personnel were allowed entry into the substation; the structure was neither designed nor intended to be accessible to or used by the general public. Id. at 588, 452 N.W.2d 826. [7] In White, supra, a resident of a public-housing facility was injured on a patio at the facility. The plaintiff attempted to distinguish Griffin on the ground that the accident in White occurred in an area accessible to the public rather than in a tenant's private residence. The Court of Appeals rejected that distinction: Because the building in the instant case was a residential housing facility containing private housing units, and was not a building used for public offices or for a public purpose, the public building exception does not apply. And the area at issue, being adjacent to a nonpublic building, does not fall within the exception merely because the area may be accessible by the public. [ Id. at 529, 473 N.W.2d 702.] In Steele v. Dep't of Corrections, 215 Mich.App. 710, 546 N.W.2d 725 (1996), a prison inmate was injured while he was part of a work crew renovating a state building. The Court of Appeals concluded that the public-building exception did not apply because the building was not open to the public during renovations. In Kerbersky, supra, a construction worker fell from a ladder while renovating a university administration building. This Court held that the building was open for use by members of the public, even though the specific accident site was closed for renovations. This Court stated, however, that where an entire building is closed for renovations, it is not open for use by members of the public. This Court therefore endorsed the holdings in Dudek and Steele. The Kerbersky Court agreed with the result in White because areas adjacent to public buildings are not covered by the exception. Also agreeing with the holding in Griffin, the Kerbersky Court stated: A tenant who is present in a city-owned apartment as the result of an oral or written lease is not using the building as a member of the public; rather, such a person has a contractual possessory interest in the apartment. Id. at 535, 582 N.W.2d 828 (emphasis added). This Court further approved the Taylor holding that the locked electrical substation was not open for use by members of the public. Next, in Brown v. Genesee Co. Bd. of Comm'rs (After Remand), 464 Mich. 430, 628 N.W.2d 471 (2001), an inmate injured himself in the shower area of a jail. A majority of this Court concluded that a jail inmate is not a member of the public for the purposes of the public-building exception to governmental immunity as that relates to a jail.