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

Heading: The remand after Brown

Text: After Brown, the Court remanded this case to the Court of Appeals for the second time, for reconsideration in light of the new decision. The Court of Appeals attempted to apply the reasoning in Brown. Here, the building in question is not a jail, but a residence hall. If a jail is open for use by members of the public by virtue of the family and friends that may visit inmates, it certainly follows that a residence hall would also be open for use by members of the public. Indeed, we would suspect that there is more, or at least equal, ingress and egress in a residence hall than in a jail. Similarly, a residence hall is likely to receive deliveries of supplies, mail, and food by nonresidents. Moreover, if the very limited access to a jail is not sufficient to preclude its characterization as a public building, the instant residence hall's minimal security measures, while presumably effective, further justify a finding that the residence hall was a public building. Thus, we believe that the Brown decision leads only to a conclusion that the residence hall was open for use by members of the public. Therefore, we conclude that the residence hall was a public building, as necessary to permit plaintiff's reliance on the public building exception to governmental immunity, M.C.L. § 691.1406. [2] It is apparent that the Court of Appeals extracted the only rationale available from Brown, the statements about access by friends, family, and attorneys and for job applications and deliveries. It then applied that rationale to the facts. It is also apparent that the Court reasonably concluded that a jail would provide tighter security than a residence hall, locked or unlocked.