Court Opinion

ID: 9526970
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-07 03:26:30.193382+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T13:25:20.711018
License: Public Domain

Fitzgerald, J.
According to the complaint in this case, on February 17, 1971, Jane Tilford slipped and fell on a patch of ice as she was entering Wayne County General Hospital and, as a result, sustained serious and permanent injuries. The fall allegedly occurred on an entrance walk leading from the parking lot to the hospital.
On May 9, 1975, despite having earlier denied a motion for summary judgment, the trial judge granted defendant’s motion for a summary judgment of dismissal on the basis of governmental immunity. On June 17, 1976, the Court of Appeals affirmed in an unpublished per curiam opinion. This Court granted plaintiffs’ application for leave to appeal on April 29, 1977. 399 Mich 894 (1977).
Plaintiffs raise five issues on appeal:
1) Whether the entrance walk of a public building comes within the "public buildings” exception of the governmental immunity statute, MCL 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106).
2) Whether the operation of a municipally owned hospital providing medical services for a fee is a proprietary function.
3) Whether the governmental immunity statute violates due process guarantees contained in the United States and Michigan Constitutions.
4) Whether the governmental immunity statute violates equal protection guarantees contained in the United States and Michigan Constitutions.
5) Whether the governmental immunity statute is social legislation which has outlived any legitimate state purpose it may have had. We reverse on the basis of the first issue and remand for trial.
*298"Public Buildings” Exception
The general grant of immunity to governmental agencies is provided by MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), which reads as follows:
"Except as in this act otherwise provided, all governmental agencies shall be immune from tort liability in all cases wherein the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.”
To this general grant of immunity, the Legislature provided the "public buildings” exception. MCL 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106) provides, in pertinent part, as follows:
"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 * * *. (Emphasis added.)
Defendant argues that since Mrs. Tilford was injured on the entrance to its public building, her claim for recovery under the "public buildings” exception of the governmental immunity statute is barred. Defendant would have us hold that the "public buildings” exception is limited to the "specific physical structure” of the building itself.
In Pichette v Manistique Public Schools (ante), 403 Mich 268; 269 NW2d 143 (1978), released today, we examined the scope of the "public buildings” exception. In that case, plaintiff was injured on a defective slide on the playground of defendant’s *299school. We rejected the narrow construction of the "public buildings” exception advanced by defendants in Pichette, as we do in the instant case:
"[W]e find that such a narrow construction of the 'public buildings’ exception conflicts with what we perceive to be the purpose of MCL 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106). We believe that in providing for the three exceptions to the general grant of immunity contained in MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), the Legislature intended to protect the general public from injury by imposing upon governmental agencies the duty to maintain safe public places, whether such places are public highways or public buildings.
"Accordingly, we find it of little importance that the slide upon which plaintiff in the instant case was injured was not itself a public building or was on the premises of a public building rather than inside the building. To be sure, Jeffrey Pichette would not have encountered the dangerous condition which led to his injuries but for the existence of defendant’s school. To bar plaintiff recovery because he was injured by a defective condition on the premises of a public building, which were under the control of the governmental entity, rather than inside the building, would have no basis either in logic or justice.” 403 Mich 284; 269 NW2d 149 (1978).
In the instant case, plaintiffs alleged that Mrs. Tilford sustained serious and permanent injuries from a slip and fall on a patch of ice on the walk leading to the entrance of defendant’s hospital. The premises relating to the public’s ingress to and egress from a public building, which are under the exclusive control of the governmental agency, are inextricably connected with the public building itself. Therefore, we find that plaintiffs in the case at bar stated a claim upon which relief could be granted.
We do not find it necessary to address the re*300maining issues plaintiffs raise on appeal since we find that an entrance walk of a public building under the control of the governmental agency comes within the "public buildings” exception of the governmental immunity statute, MCL 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106).
The Court of Appeals and the trial court are reversed. We remand the matter to the trial court for further proceedings in accordance with this opinion.
No costs, a public question being involved.
Kavanagh, C.J., and Levin, J., concurred with Fitzgerald, J.