Court Opinion

ID: 9689012
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:16:17.595819+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:43.530873
License: Public Domain

R. C. Livo, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I concur in the result reached by the lead opinion. I write separately because I respectfully disagree with the lead opinion’s reliance on Furness v Public Service Comm, 100 Mich App 365; 299 NW2d 35 (1980).
I disagree with Furness and the lead opinion to the extent they hold that conduct amounting to refusal to act to cure a known danger is conduct protected by governmental immunity.1
I agree instead with Landry v Detroit, 143 Mich App 16; 371 NW2d 466 (1985), where this Court held that a refusal to install necessary metal detectors stated a claim in avoidance of immunity. A refusal to use reasonably available means to avoid a known danger is a commissive act originating in the intent not to act.
I concur in the result reached by the lead opinion because, as noted in the lead opinion, under the facts of this case, Baraga Area Schools neither *504knew nor should have known that without a point-of-operation guard harm would follow. Thus, the conduct of Baraga Area Schools was omissive only and is protected by governmental immunity.

 I note that the plaintiff in Furness did not allege knowing neglect to order installation of necessary railroad crossings. Furness, p 367.