Court Opinion

ID: 9684999
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:20:50.314391+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:01.660134
License: Public Domain

Danhof, C.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. Operation of a public school district is a governmental function entitled to governmental immunity. Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich App 692; 314 NW2d 728 (1981), Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich App 32; 306 NW2d 381 (1981), Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich App 209; 306 NW2d 454 (1981), Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich App 103; 297 NW2d 625 (1980). Thus, I have no problem with the majority opinion to the extent that it concludes that the day-to-day services provided by teachers and other school employees represent a governmental function.
However, I do not agree with the majority’s interpretation of Justice Moody’s statement that "the crux of the governmental essence test should be founded upon the inquiry whether the purpose, *87planning and carrying out of the activity, due to its unique character or governmental mandate, can be effectively accomplished only by the government”. I do not believe that Justice Moody was using the term "activity” to mean that once having concluded that a particular governmental function is immune we must then go on to scrutinize every aspect (or activity) of the governmental agency performing that function to see if the particular activity at issue, in turn, can withstand scrutiny and be classified as a governmental function. I would submit that were such a test to be applied almost any activity carried out by an otherwise immune governmental agency could be atomized to the point that the particular activity at issue would not be immune.
This is not to say that I would necessarily apply an all-or-nothing approach to the doctrine of governmental immunity. Rather, in analyzing governmental immunity issues I would first look to the question whether the governmental agency is engaged in a governmental function entitled to immunity. See, for example, Rubino v Sterling Heights, 94 Mich App 494; 290 NW2d 43 (1979), Berkowski v Hall, 91 Mich App 1; 282 NW2d 813 (1979). If this is answered affirmatively, I would then look to whether the particular activity at issue is related to the governmental function. If it is, immunity is warranted. See, for example, Rouse v Michigan, 109 Mich App 21; 311 NW2d 144 (1981), McIntosh, supra, Churilla, supra. It would be an unusual set of facts where a particular activity carried out by an agency engaged in performing a governmental function would not be related to the governmental function.
The "work experience program” involved in the instant case is part of the school’s curriculum and *88supervised by the work studies coordinator. It is part of the day-to-day operation of a school and related to the school district’s governmental function. The school district having determined that this program has educational value, I would find the school district entitled to immunity.