 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Estate of Gordon3/22/2002
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from separate orders of the Court of Claims and Saginaw Circuit Court that granted defendant-appellants summary disposition of plaintiff's claims arising from the decedent's wrongful death. We affirm.
The decedent worked at a Saginaw 7-Eleven store, which was owned by defendant Garb Ko, Inc. and supplied with products by defendant Marathon Oil Company, where she was murdered during an armed robbery of the store by defendant Michael Earl Young. Defendant Michigan Department of Corrections (MDOC) had released Young on parole within several days of the decedent's murder despite that Young had pending murder charges that should have foreclosed any possibility of his release.
Plaintiff filed a four-count complaint in the Court of Claims against fifteen state agencies and employees, three county and municipal agencies and officials, twenty unnamed defendants, and Young, seeking recovery under theories of ultra vires acts, negligence and gross negligence, constitutional torts, and nuisance per se. Plaintiff also filed a two-count complaint in the Saginaw Circuit Court against Young, Garb Ko and Marathon seeking recovery pursuant to theories of negligence and nuisance. The Court of Claims granted defendants MDOC, Director of the MDOC Kenneth L. McGinnis, Deputy Director of Correctional Facilities Administration Dan Bolden, and Deputy Director of Field Operations Robert Steinman (hereinafter the MDOC defendants) summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) on the basis of governmental immunity. The Saginaw Circuit Court granted Garb Ko and Marathon summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10).
Plaintiff now challenges both summary disposition rulings. This Court reviews de novo the trial court's grant of a motion for summary disposition to determine whether the moving party was entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Morales v Auto-Owners Ins Co, 458 Mich 288, 294; 582 NW2d 776 (1998). In reviewing a motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), a court must accept all of the nonmoving party's well-pleaded allegations as true and should grant summary disposition only when no factual development could possibly furnish a basis for recovery. The nonmoving party must plead sufficient facts to overcome a claim of governmental immunity. Stoick v Caro Community Hosp, 167 Mich App 154, 159-160; 421 NW2d 611 (1988). With respect to a motion brought under MCR 2.116(C)(10), a court must consider in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party the pleadings and all relevant documentary evidence submitted by the parties to determine whether any genuine issue of material fact exists to warrant a trial. Morales, supra.
Plaintiff first argues that the Court of Claims erroneously granted the MDOC defendants summary disposition on the ground of governmental immunity because the complaint demonstrated that the MDOC defendants engaged in ultra vires acts that exceeded the scope of their authority. Governmental immunity shields the government's agencies and its highest appointive executive officials from any tort liability arising from their performance of governmental functions. MCL 691.1407. Governmental functions are activities "expressly or impliedly mandated or authorized by constitution, statute, local charter or ordinance." MCL 691.1401(f). Governmental immunity does not apply when the agency or official engages in ultra vires activity, which is activity that the governmental agency lacks legal authority to perform in any manner. Richardson v Jackson Co, 432 Mich 377, 387; 443 NW2d 105 (1989).
Plaintiff suggests that the MDOC defendants' release of Young on parole constituted an ultra vires act. However, the MD
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Personal Injury Attorneys
Personal Injury Lawyers
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Personal Injury Lawyers in your area.
|
|