Court Opinion

ID: 9728448
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 14:08:09.336813+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:48.621667
License: Public Domain

Williams, J.
(concurring). A majority of this Court in separate opinions determined a municipally owned general hospital providing a public medical service for a fee was not performing a governmental function within the meaning of MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107). Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich 183; 273 NW2d 413 (1978). I joined two of my colleagues in dissenting from that result. 404 Mich 183, 202.
However, now that the rule in Parker is the law of this state, I concur with my Brother Kavanagh that that rule should apply "to all cases pending on December 27, 1978 in which an express chai*224lenge to the defense of governmental immunity was made and preserved as well as all cases started after that date” (ante, p 221). See my concurring opinion in Pittman v City of Taylor, 398 Mich 41, 51; 247 NW 512 (1976); Bricker v Green, 313 Mich 218, 236; 21 NW2d 105 (1946). The prospective only ruling of Parker v Port Huron Hospital, 361 Mich 1; 105 NW2d 1 (1960), is not entirely applicable to this case. First of all, that case involved a charitable hospital, whereas this case involves a public hospital. Second, unfortunately, the state of the law as to what constitutes governmental immunity, without further legislative definition, has for some years been in flux. While in the field of governmental immunity there has been no such clear and simple signal of change as was specifically given in comparative negligence, Placek v Sterling Heights, 405 Mich 638, 662-668; 275 NW2d 511 (1979), the opinions of this Court have been such as should warn those who might possibly be affected that they had better seek protection either through insurance or through legislative redefinition. See, for example, Parker v Port Huron Hospital, 361 Mich 1; 105 NW2d 1 (1960), itself; Williams v Detroit, 364 Mich 231; 111 NW2d 1 (1961); and more recently and subsequent to the facts of this case, the dissenting opinions in Thomas v Dep’t of State Highways, 398 Mich 1, 14, 25; 247 NW2d 530 (1976); Bush v Oscoda Area Schools, 405 Mich 716, 734; 275 NW2d 268 (1979).