Court Opinion

ID: 9698775
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-25 19:59:42.966505+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:20:43.204119
License: Public Domain

Bashara, J.,
(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent from that part of the Court’s opinion dealing with the liability of school principal Vera Bennett. The majority holds that *102because the principal was engaged in a ministerial act, an action for negligence will lie. The statute, MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), makes no mention of discretionary as opposed to ministerial acts. Rather, the test provided is whether "the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function”. See the concurring opinion of Justice Williams in Bush v Oscoda Area Schools, 405 Mich 716, 734; 275 NW2d 268 (1979). Therefore, to determine the liability of Ms. Bennett in the present case, the proper question to ask is whether she was acting within the scope of her employment. If so, she should be held immune from liability, regardless of the ministerial or discretionary nature of her actions.