Court Opinion

ID: 9658270
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-23 20:53:52.281838+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:13:53.263607
License: Public Domain

Dethmers, J.
(dissenting). I do not concur in reversal. First, I favor affirmance of the trial court order dismissing as to defendant city on the ground of governmental immunity for the reasons set forth in the opinion of Mr. Justice Carr in Williams v. City of Detroit, 364 Mich 231. Also, in my view, the order must be affirmed because of the prohibition contained in PA 1951, No 59 (CLS 1961, § 124.101 et seq. [Stat Ann 1958 Rev § 5.3376(1) et seq.]), against making a political subdivision a party to any action such as this.
I do not agree with Mr. Justice O’Hara that Marine City lost any governmental immunity on September 22, 1961, the date of decision in Williams. If, however, Williams could be deemed to have had any such effect it would have extended only to the historic, Court-created immunity and not to the special case of immunity provided by the statute from liability for the tortious actions of its policeman engaged in the performance of his duties. Nowhere *57in the several opinions in Williams is it said to have such effect, nor could it do so with respect to statutory immunity. I fail to see that the fact that the legislative prohibition of suit against a political subdivision for the torts of its policeman was enacted at a time when this Court followed the doctrine of governmental immunity means that that prohibition was intended by the legislature to cease so soon as this Court might thereafter depart from that doctrine. Manifestly, it was the legislative intent that the municipality should be immune and that the matter of payment by it on a judgment against its policeman should be discretionary with it but not enforceable against it, contrary to its wishes, by ■being made a party defendant, no matter what the views of this Court might happen to be, at any particular time, on the subject of Court-created governmental immunity.
The order should be affirmed. No costs.
Kelly, J., concurred with Dethmers, J»