Court Opinion

ID: 9689011
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 18:16:17.59222+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:43.530094
License: Public Domain

Cynar, J.
(concurring in part and dissenting in part). I agree concerning the intentional nuisance exception that the factual basis presented does not *503support plaintiffs claim of intentionally created nuisance.
However, I must respectfully dissent with the majority holding on the defective building exception issue. It can hardly be construed that reliance on Green v Dep’t of Corrections, 30 Mich App 648; 186 NW2d 792 (1971), aff'd 386 Mich 459; 192 NW2d 491 (1971), in the case before us amounts to stretching a holding beyond its applicability. While the milling machine in Green was anchored securely to the floor, the weight of the machine in this matter affixed the machine to the floor, perhaps even more securely. I would hold the trial court erred in granting summary disposition on this issue.