Court Opinion

ID: 9705146
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 00:58:00.931627+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:08.288655
License: Public Domain

T. M. Burns, J.
(concurring). I reluctantly concur in the judgment affirming the dismissal of this complaint on the basis of statutory governmental immunity. MCLA 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107). The Legislature and the Supreme Court have indicated this archaic doctrine is to have some continuing vitality. I would limit its application to the discretionary acts of governmental officials or agencies. See, Siess v Bureau of Pardons & Paroles, 74 Mich App 613; 255 NW2d 2 (1977).
The hiring of employees by the Michigan Department of Mental Health and the acts surrounding the decision to release plaintiff’s decedent for a home visit fall in this narrow band of activities. Negligent treatment of a patient by these same personnel would not allow defendants to be cloaked in immunity. White v Detroit, 74 Mich App 545, 548; 254 NW2d 572 (1977) (T. M. Burns, dissenting), Duncan v Detroit, 78 Mich App 632; 261 NW2d 26 (1977) (T. M. Burns, dissenting). It is not the "operation of a public hospital” but the nature of the wrongs alleged which leads to a finding of immunity in this case.