Grace Alexander v. City of Detroit, 356962

Detroit Animal Care and Control (DACC), a city agency, impounded a stray three‑year‑old pit bull and placed it with a volunteer foster caregiver under a foster‑care program run with a nonprofit partner.
While visiting the foster caregiver’s home the plaintiff was bitten in the face by the dog and required surgery; the dog was returned to DACC and euthanized.
Plaintiff sued the City and DACC under Michigan’s dog‑bite statute (strict liability) and for negligence, alleging defendants knowingly placed a dangerous dog in a foster home.
Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7), asserting governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA) because the fostering activity was a governmental function.
The trial court denied the motion without prejudice and allowed 60 days of limited discovery on whether the proprietary‑function exception (MCL 691.1413) applies; defendants appealed the denial.
The Court of Appeals affirmed, concluding fostering was an impliedly authorized governmental function, the dog‑bite statute did not abrogate immunity, and discovery on the proprietary‑function exception was warranted.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether DACC’s foster‑care placement is a "governmental function" under the GTLA	Foster placement was not a governmental act when the bite occurred; defendants were not "in the course of capturing or handling the dog"	Foster program is authorized (expressly or impliedly) by the City animal‑control ordinance and thus is a governmental function	Fostering is impliedly authorized by ordinance and is a governmental function; GTLA immunity applies unless an exception fits
Whether the dog‑bite statute removes governmental immunity	Dog‑bite statute imposes strict liability and therefore should override GTLA immunity	GTLA still bars dog‑bite claims against governmental agencies absent express legislative waiver	Dog‑bite statute does not abrogate governmental immunity; GTLA applies to strict‑liability dog‑bite claims
Whether the proprietary‑function exception was properly dismissed for failure to plead / no factual support	Plaintiff invoked the proprietary‑function exception and sought discovery to develop facts showing DACC or partner sought pecuniary profit	Defendants argued plaintiff failed to plead the exception and offered no factual support; DACC affidavit denies profit motive	Trial court did not err in allowing limited discovery; plaintiff may amend and further discovery could reveal facts supporting the proprietary‑function exception

Genesee Co Drain Comm’r v Genesee Co, 309 Mich App 317 (Mich. Ct. App. 2015) (broad construction of "governmental function" requires some legal basis for the activity)
Tate v Grand Rapids, 256 Mich App 656 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (claims under the dog‑bite statute are subject to governmental immunity)
Odom v Wayne Co, 482 Mich 459 (Mich. 2008) (state or political subdivisions are liable only when the Legislature expressly permits suit)
Snead v John Carlo, Inc., 294 Mich App 343 (Mich. Ct. App. 2011) (governmental immunity shields agencies engaged in governmental functions absent statutory exceptions)
Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143 (Mich. 2000) (exceptions to governmental immunity are narrowly construed)
Peterson Novelties, Inc. v City of Berkley, 259 Mich App 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 2003) (summary disposition before discovery can be improper if discovery might uncover support for the opposing position)