Court Opinion

ID: 9725485
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 11:49:28.435294+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:15.573915
License: Public Domain

M. F. Cavanagh, J.
(dissenting). I am in agreement with the majority’s recitation of the facts and the current state of the law as to governmental immunity. I disagree with their prognostication of how Justice Moody would treat this factual situation.
I would hold that the hiring and assignment of university faculty and the supervision of university faculty and students are not governmental functions for purposes of the immunity statute. Although the state has a significant financial involvement in higher education, university education is not an activity which "can be effectively accomplished only by the government”. Parker v City of Highland Park, 404 Mich 183, 200; 273 NW2d 413 (1978). Education at public universities is neither free nor universal, as is true of public education at the elementary and secondary levels.
Of significance to me also would be the fact that the government plays virtually no role in placing students in public universities. The decision to seek admission at a particular public university is essentially a matter of individual choice and depends in large part on the programs offered at the university as well as the academic qualifications of the individual seeking admission. I am persuaded that this situation would be contrasted by Justice Moody with public mental hospitals where patients are committed to an institution, often by court order, to fulfil the clear governmental responsibility of caring for those who cannot care for *362themselves or who present a danger to society. Id., 201.
Finally, I do not deem holding public universities liable for the negligent activities of their personnel to be "an unacceptable interference with government’s ability to govern”. Id., 200, 202. Accordingly, I would reverse the lower court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant-appellee.