Court Opinion

ID: 9516681
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-06 23:48:51.255434+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:38:41.577696
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, P.J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority’s determination that the defendants were acting within the scope of their employment in the exercise of a governmental function. I disagree, however, with the opinion’s abandonment of the "ministerial-discretionary” standard. I agree with the thorough discussion of this standard by our colleague, Judge Michael J. Kelly, in the case of Layton v Quinn, 120 Mich App 708; 328 NW2d 95 (1982). Applying that standard to this case, however, would still result in affirmance as the acts of the defendants here involved were discretionary and protected by the doctrine of governmental immunity. See Fiser v City of Ann Arbor, 107 Mich App 367; 309 NW2d 552 (1981).