Court Opinion

ID: 9518442
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 00:52:53.652533+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T12:29:02.563005
License: Public Domain

Edwards, J.
(concurring). Plaintiffs in these cases were injured in an accident which occurred on highway US-10 in Genesee county. The essence of the action stated in 2 alternative counts is plaintiffs’ *272claim that defendants were negligent in allowing a pool of water and ice to form on the highway, or in failing to remove same. The actions were filed in the court of claims and dismissed there by Circuit Judge Quinn on the grounds of governmental immunity. Judge Quinn held that both counts essentially stated tort actions against agents of the State of Michigan. We agree with Judge Quinn in holding that these actions as stated in both counts are ordinary tort actions, and further that as of the time of their occurrence they were barred by the defense of governmental immunity. See Williams v. City of Detroit, 364 Mich 231.
While this is all which needs be said to dispose of these cases, the discussion of a purported difference between the position of the State and the position of a municipality as to governmental immunity moves us to quote the language which is actually relied on in this regard:
“Section 24 of Act No 135 of the Public Acts of 1939, as amended by Act No 237 of the Public Acts of 1943, is hereby repealed.” PA 1945, No 87 (CL 1948, § 691.141, note [Stat Ann 1959 Cum Supp § 27-.3548(42)]).
By this statute, the legislature repealed PA 1939,. No 135, § 24, as amended by PA 1943, No 237, the-amendment being a legislative grant of the right of maintaining tort actions against the State. By enactment of this statute, the legislature moved to abolish the judicial doctrine of governmental immunity. By repealing this statute, the legislature returned to its prior posture which was no statutory provision on the subject whatsoever.
It is now proposed that the citizens of this State should be held to be barred from maintaining tort actions against the State by 2 statutory enactments *273wliicli achieved utter negation. The undersigned cannot agree to such logic.
Affirmed. No costs.
Souris, J., concurred with Edwards, J.
Otis M. Smith, J., took no part in the decision of this case.