Kathy Smith v. Board of County Road Commissioners
334226
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jan 4, 2018Background
- On July 19, 2013, a 36"-diameter, ~85-foot red oak near a county dirt road fell on Smith’s house during a windstorm, damaging the house and injuring Smith. Smith had repeatedly complained to the Oakland County Road Commission (OCRC) from 2012 (and allegedly since 2007) that grader blades and calcium chloride applications damaged the tree’s exposed roots.
- Smith documented multiple incidents where grader blades struck the tree and photographed graders and chemical trucks; her last complaint was July 10, 2013.
- Smith sued OCRC and individual employees/officials alleging trespass (later voluntarily dismissed), intentional tort, and gross negligence.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10), invoking governmental immunity under the GTLA (MCL 691.1401 et seq.).
- The trial court granted summary disposition, concluding defendants were immune because grading the road was a governmental function and individual conduct did not rise to gross negligence or intentional tort.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed, holding OCRC’s grading was a governmental function and individual defendants’ conduct did not constitute gross negligence or bad-faith intentional tortious conduct.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether OCRC is immune under MCL 691.1407(1) for road grading | OCRC exceeded/abused its function by using oversized equipment and chemicals that damaged the tree | Grading roads is a statutorily authorized governmental function; broad construction of "governmental function" applies | OCRC immune: grading is a governmental function under MCL 224.19(1) and MCL 691.1407(1) |
| Whether individual defendants are immune under MCL 691.1407(2) re: scope and function | Individuals acted outside scope (struck tree, sprayed roots) and thus not covered | Actions (grading, applying calcium chloride) were within scope and part of governmental function | Individuals acted within scope and function; those elements satisfied |
| Whether individual defendants’ conduct amounted to gross negligence/proximate cause | Repeated strikes (documented 11, alleged up to 43 over years) and chemical spraying show reckless disregard causing tree failure | Incidents were not so reckless or willful as to demonstrate substantial lack of concern; wounds to tree were minor relative to size; at most ordinary negligence | No gross negligence: conduct not so reckless as to demonstrate substantial lack of concern; immunity applies (proximate-cause analysis unnecessary) |
| Whether individual defendants are immune from intentional-tort claim | Actions were intentional and caused harm; immunity should not apply | No evidence of malicious intent, bad faith, or willful wantonness; acts were discretionary and in good faith | Intentional-tort exception not met: acts not in bad faith or with requisite indifference; immunity applies |
Key Cases Cited
- Maskery v. Board of Regents of University of Michigan, 468 Mich 609 (broad construction of "governmental function")
- Milot v. Dep’t of Transp, 318 Mich App 272 (standard of review for MCR 2.116(C)(7))
- Moraccini v. City of Sterling Heights, 296 Mich App 387 (evidentiary showing on (C)(7) motions)
- RDM Holdings, Ltd v. Continental Plastics Co., 281 Mich App 678 (questions of law when no factual dispute)
- West v. General Motors Corp., 469 Mich 177 (standard for MCR 2.116(C)(10))
- Liparoto Const., Inc v. Gen Shale Brick, Inc., 284 Mich App 25 (consideration of record on (C)(10))
- Oliver v. Smith, 290 Mich App 678 (characterization of gross negligence)
- Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich 109 (ordinary negligence insufficient to show gross negligence)
- Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich 459 (elements for governmental immunity against intentional torts)