Court Opinion

ID: 9673328
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 04:10:06.85748+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:16:21.598433
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, P.J.,
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I respectfully dissent from the majority opinion in regard to the liability of Officer Fluhart. I concur on all other issues.
The trial court found that the search procedure conducted by Officer Fluhart was a ministerial act which was executed negligently. The trial court further found that plaintiffs injuries resulted from force exerted by the officer in placing plaintiff against the wall. The trial court, however, found that the officer did not commit an intentional tort.
Plaintiffs injuries occurred during the execution of a temporary detention and search. I agree with the majority’s conclusion that the execution of the search procedure is a ministerial-operational activity and that the officer is not immune from tort liability arising from the performance of that activity. See Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 592, 659-660; 363 NW2d 641 (1984).
The question before us is whether the trial court properly concluded that a tort was committed. The existence of a tort will generally be determined with reference to common-law tort principles. In the present case, two different theories of liability were advanced, i.e., battery and negligence.
In order to recover on a claim of battery, a plaintiff must prove every element of the cause of action. Moreover, a plaintiffs claim may fail if a *279defendant raises and proves a valid defense. In this case, Officer Fluhart claimed that he was justified in using force against plaintiff in order to effect a lawful detention and search. I believe that an officer is justified only in using reasonable force, just as an officer is entitled to use only reasonable force when making an arrest. See Brewer v Perrin, 132 Mich App 520, 528; 349 NW2d 198 (1984); Smith v Michigan, 122 Mich App 340, 345; 333 NW2d 50 (1983). However, the trial judge did not state his reasons for finding that an intentional tort had not been committed. The judge did not indicate whether he felt that the use of force was justified or whether he felt that plaintiff failed to prove that the officer possessed the requisite intent to do an act involving the use of excessive force. Because of the state of the record, I am unable to review this finding.
However, I believe that the trial court properly concluded that the officer was liable for the injury resulting from his negligence. In order to prevail on a claim of negligence, a plaintiff must prove that the defendant owes a duty of care to plaintiff. The plaintiff must also show that defendant breached that duty and that such breach was a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries. The dispute in this case is in regard to the duty of care. It is clear in this case that, because of the relationship between the parties, Officer Fluhart owed plaintiff a duty. The problem arises in regard to the extent of that duty. I believe that the proper standard of care in this situation is "that care which a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the discharge of official duties of like nature under like circumstances”.
This jurisdiction has returned to the common-law rule of one standard of due care. Laney v Consumers Power Co, 418 Mich 180, 186; 341 *280NW2d 106 (1983). See also Moning v Alfono, 400 Mich 425, 443; 254 NW2d 759 (1977). The Supreme Court has stated the standard by which to determine a claim of negligence on the part of a police officer: the officer’s conduct should be compared to that care which a reasonably prudent man would exercise in the discharge of official duties of like nature under like circumstances. Fiser v Ann Arbor, 417 Mich 461, 470; 339 NW2d 413 (1983).
The majority apparently feels that a police officer must be held to some lesser standard of care than the general standard of care that is applicable to other persons in this state. The majority apparently believes that a police officer has a duty to act only in an "unwanton” or "unmalicious” manner. I cannot subscribe to a rule of law which would relieve a police officer from liability for unreasonable conduct in the performance of his duties. There is no less need for the use of reason in performing the job of a police officer than there is in any other activity. In fact, due to the nature of the job, there is probably a larger need to take rational action because of the recurring need for the use of weapons and physical force. Police officers are trained to remain calm and rational. On the other hand, police officers obviously encounter many stressful and unpredictable situations. However, the duty imposed on the officer is a duty of reasonable care under the circumstances of the case. I believe that this standard and the immunity granted for discretionary acts performed by police officers will adequately shield them from liability so that they may proficiently carry out the duties placed on them.
The trial court in this case did not state which standard of care was applied. The trial court simply found that the defendant negligently per*281formed the search, but that he did not commit an intentional tort. While the majority admits that the trial court found that Officer Fluhart’s conduct was negligent, the majority concludes that liability cannot attach. There is no immunity from tort liability for the negligent performance of a ministerial-operational activity. Ross v Consumers Power Co, supra, 420 Mich 660, fn 51. I therefore would affirm the finding of liability as to Officer Fluhart.