Court Opinion

ID: 9686338
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:42:53.914722+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:17.931606
License: Public Domain

Taylor, J.
(concurring). I concur with the majority because the recreational land use act (rua), MCL 300.201; MSA 13.1485, does not apply to the land in question in this case. The reason for this, as the majority itself states, is that the rua does not apply to public lands. Ante, p 573. See also Wymer v Holmes, 429 Mich 66; 412 NW2d 213 (1987). Once this is understood it is apparent that the rua could not create an exception to the governmental tort liability act, MCL 691.1407(1); MSA 3.996(107)(1).
Further I agree that there was no waiver of the governmental immunity defense.
I express no opinion regarding the remainder of the majority opinion, it being unnecessary to the resolution of the case.
Brickley and Weaver, JJ., concurred with Taylor, J.