Court Opinion

ID: 9741754
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:01:24.745875+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:25.729490
License: Public Domain

Ryan, J.
(dissenting). The question for our consideration in this case is whether the operation of a hospital by a municipality constitutes the exercise or discharge of a governmental function thus immunizing the city from tort liability under MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107). In my view it does, and I would affirm the trial court’s grant of defendant city’s motion for summary judgment.
MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107) states:
*203"Except as in this act otherwise provided, all governmental agencies shall be immune from tort liability in all cases wherein the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.”
In Thomas v Dep’t of State Highways, 398 Mich 1, 10; 247 NW2d 530 (1976), the majority noted that the historical context in which the foregoing statute was enacted suggests that the Legislature intended to codify the state’s existing common-law or judge-made immunity and to restore the immunity of municipalities as it existed prior to the 1961 decision of Williams v Detroit, 364 Mich 231; 111 NW2d 1 (1961).
At common law, the expression "governmental function” was the term of art which both described the nature and defined the limits of state and municipal immunity from tort liability. By employing that same term of art in creating statutory immunity, the Legislature appears to have directed the courts to look to the common law for guidance in determining whether, in a given case, a governmental agency is exercising or discharging a "governmental function” for purposes of the immunity statute.
Reference to the pre-statutory immunity cases discloses that in Martinson v Alpena, 328 Mich 595; 44 NW2d 148 (1950), this Court held that the operation of a public hospital to promote the general public health is indeed a governmental function. Moreover, it seems evident that the operation of a public hospital is within the frequently cited "common good of all” definition of a “governmental function”. See Martinson, and Gunther v Che*204boygan County Road Commissioners, 225 Mich 619, 621; 196 NW 386 (1923), citing Bolster v City of Lawrence, 225 Mass 387; 114 NE 722 (1917).
I conclude, therefore, that the operation of a public hospital is a governmental function at common law in Michigan and is a governmental function for purposes of the statute in question.
It remains to be determined whether the plaintiffs in this case have alleged in their complaint such specific tortious activity against the City of Highland Park as is within the scope of the immunity the city enjoys.
The complaint alleges that the defendant city, through its agents, servants and employees at the Highland Park General Hospital, was negligent in the examination, diagnosis and treatment of the plaintiff, Vincent Oshee Parker, in failing to discover and remove a piece of glass which was lodged beneath the skin of his back and which remained there for several months after he was treated at the hospital.
Manifestly, the examination, diagnosis and treatment of patients at a public hospital are activities intended to promote the general public health and are exercised for "the common good of all”. Consequently, the alleged tortious activity of the defendant city is within the governmental function of operating its municipal hospital. The defendant is immune, therefore, from liability for its negligence, if any, in performing that function in this case by reason of the provisions of MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107).
The trial court was correct in granting the defendant city’s motion for summary judgment on the basis of governmental immunity.
I vote to affirm.
Williams and Coleman, JJ., concurred with Ryan, J.