Court Opinion

ID: 9686538
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-24 15:54:08.269086+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:18:19.877767
License: Public Domain

Bronson, P.J.
(dissenting). I respectfully dissent. I do not agree that the city should be immune from liability where plaintiff allegedly was injured as a result of the city’s failure to enforce its own ordinance. This case represents a particular example of the injustices created by blanket application of the doctrine of governmental immunity.
The majority holding imposes the risks of negligent activity by the City of Detroit on one family, the Reids. The fear that abolishing the governmental immunity doctrine will subject governmental units to liability for vast sums of money would be better remedied by placing a dollar cap on recovery. For a more detailed exposition of my views on the perpetuation of this archaic doctrine, see Berger v City of Berkley, 87 Mich App 361, 371-376; 275 NW2d 2 (1978) (Bronson, J., concurring), lv den 406 Mich 969 (1979), and Pope v McIntyre, 124 Mich App 144, 147; 333 NW2d 612 (1983) (Bronson, J., concurring).