Court Opinion

ID: 9848772
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-09-24 04:26:54.568398+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T09:18:44.768614
License: Public Domain

Bronson, J.
(concurring). I agree with the results reached in both of the opinions filed by my brothers in this case, but find myself in the position of being unable to sign either opinion. I leave the task of forging precedent in this area to the Supreme Court.
As the author of Walkowski v Macomb County Sheriff 64 Mich App 460; 236 NW2d 516 (1975), I cannot join in Judge William R. Peterson’s discussion of the underpinnings, rationale and scope of the doctrine of immunity from tort liability as it protects individual public officials.
I do agree that plaintiffs’ complaint fails to state any claim against the defendant school superintendent upon which relief can be granted and that the question of whether he would be protected by governmental immunity need not be considered.
I agree that plaintiffs’ complaint does allege personal, actionable negligence on the part of the defendant teacher and the defendant principal. I concur with Judge Kelly’s conclusion that neither of these defendants was involved in the performance of "discretionary acts” as that phrase has been used to define the scope of governmental immunity for public officials and that the trial court therefore erred in granting summary judgment in favor of these defendants.
Finally, I concur in that part of Judge Peterson’s opinion which discusses the "public building” *701exception to the statutory immunity of the school district and with the reasons which he gives in support of the conclusion that there is no such liability in this case.