Court Opinion

ID: 9742644
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 21:17:22.153978+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T07:24:34.402006
License: Public Domain

Carr, J.
(concurring). In granting the motions of the defendant school district for summary judgments in its favor the trial judge said, in part:
“This court believes that liability should be determined either on a statutory requirement or should be based on the law as established by case decisions of a court of final jurisdiction. In our State the Supreme Court has indicated rather clearly in its majority opinions that a school district has immunity from tort liability as a result of an injury such as alleged in this ease. It is not disputed by the plaintiff that playground activities have a proper place in the physical and mental development of students. Therefore, it would come under the classification of a usual and proper governmental function of a school district.
“It does not appear that the court would be justified in permitting a jury to know whether or not the school district carried insurance. Reference to insurance can be made on voir dire examination of a jury, but it is limited to ascertaining whether a prospective juror is an officer, stockholder or member of any insurance company. See Harker v. Bushouse, 254 Mich 187.
“This type of question is one it would seem which should be answered by the legislature rather than by the courts.”
We think that the trial court correctly determined the issue and, therefore, we concur in the affirmance of the orders from which the appeals have been taken.
*221Dethmers, C. J., and Kelly, J., concurred with Carr, J.