Court Opinion

ID: 9685725
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 14:58:48.060229+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:09.780573
License: Public Domain

Mackenzie, J.
(dissenting). I disagree with the majority’s conclusion that this case comes within the defective building exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106).
MCL 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106) provides in part:
Governmental agencies have the obligation to repair and maintain public buildings under their control when open for use by members of the public. Governmental agencies are liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from a dangerous or defective condition of a public building if the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and, for a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge, failed to remedy the condition or to take action reasonably necessary to protect the public against the condition. *527Knowledge of the dangerous and defective condition of the public building and time to repair the same shall be conclusively presumed when such defect existed so as to be readily apparent to an ordinary observant person for a period of 90 days or longer before the injury took place. As a condition to any recovery for injuries sustained by reason of any dangerous or defective public building, the injured person, within 120 days from the time the injury occurred, shall serve a notice on the responsible governmental agency of the occurrence of the injury and the defect. The notice shall specify the exact location and nature of the defect, the injury sustained and the names of the witnesses known at the time by the claimant.
It is clear from a reading of the statute that its scope is confined to preserving the structural integrity of public buildings by keeping them in repair.
. In this case, there was nothing about the building itself that was defective. The foreign substance on the floor was not part of the building. Compare Velmer v Baraga Area Schools, 430 Mich 385; 424 NW2d 770 (1988). There is no indication that the substance was on the floor due to a structural flaw such as a leaking pipe. Compare Ray v Dep’t of Social Services, 156 Mich App 55; 401 NW2d 307 (1986), lv den 428 Mich 891 (1987). There is no allegation that the foreign substance accumulated due to a defectively designed floor or a floor constructed with unsafe materials. Compare Davis v Detroit, 149 Mich App 249; 386 NW2d 169 (1986). In short, plaintiff has alleged nothing more than negligent janitorial care. That is not enough to bring this case within the public building exception to governmental immunity. Accordingly, I would affirm.