Court Opinion

ID: 9725182
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:33:51.320044+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:11.921586
License: Public Domain

Souris, J.
(concurring). I concur in affirmance. However, my concurrence in rejection of plaintiffs’ contention that purchase of indemnity insurance constituted a waiver of the school district’s immunity from liability herein is compelled by this Court’s majority opinion in McDowell v. State Highway Commissioner, 365 Mich 268.* In that opinion we were told that the old common-law rule of governmental immunity, theretofore subject to judicial relief from judicially created injustices, has become a legislative rule subject to modification only by the legislature. See opinions in McDowell and in Sayers v. School District No. 1, 366 Mich 217, for details thereof.
Absent legislative grant of authority to waive such new legislative rule of governmental immunity, by purchase of insurance or otherwise, this Court now (since McDowell) has no alternative but to reject plaintiffs’ contention.
Adams, J., took no part in the decision of this case.

 The majority consisted of Chief Justice Dethmeks and Justices >Cark, Kelly, Black, and Kavanagh.