Melissa Mays v. Governor Rick Snyder
916 N.W.2d 227
Mich. Ct. App.2018Background
- Flint switched its municipal water source from Detroit (Lake Huron) to the Flint River on April 25, 2014 while under emergency management; plaintiffs are Flint water users and property owners alleging injuries and property damage from contaminated/corrosive water.
- Plaintiffs sued the State of Michigan, Governor Snyder, DEQ, DHHS, and emergency managers Earley and Ambrose in the Court of Claims (verified class action, Jan. 21, 2016), asserting constitutional torts (state-created danger, bodily-integrity due process), Fair & Just Treatment claim, and inverse-condemnation.
- Defendants moved for summary disposition arguing plaintiffs failed to satisfy the CCA statutory notice requirement (MCL 600.6431), failed to plead cognizable constitutional claims, and (for city defendants) that the Court of Claims lacked jurisdiction over emergency managers.
- The Court of Claims granted dismissal of the Fair & Just Treatment and state-created-danger claims but denied summary disposition on bodily-integrity and inverse-condemnation claims and allowed official-capacity suits to proceed; this appeal followed.
- The Court of Appeals affirmed: (1) factual issues precluded summary dismissal for failure to comply with the CCA notice provision; (2) exceptions (harsh-and-unreasonable consequences and fraudulent concealment) can apply; (3) emergency managers fall within Court of Claims jurisdiction as state officers/employees acting within authority; (4) plaintiffs adequately pleaded a bodily-integrity constitutional violation and inverse condemnation; (5) state-created-danger claim fails because it requires third‑party violence under controlling doctrine.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Statutory notice under MCL 600.6431(3) | Mays: notice requirement should not bar claims because accrual dates vary, discovery was concealed, and exceptions apply (harsh consequences, fraudulent concealment). | State: plaintiffs filed after six‑month window (claims accrued by April 25, 2014 or earlier); dismissal required. | Denied dismissal: factual disputes on accrual; harsh‑and‑unreasonable‑consequences applies here; fraudulent‑concealment tolling can apply to CCA notice period. |
| Applicability of fraudulent‑concealment tolling (MCL 600.5855) to CCA notice | Plaintiffs: legislative import of RJA limitations into CCA and purpose/practicality require tolling of notice where concealed. | State: RJA tolling applies to limitations, not the CCA notice provision; omission is intentional. | Held: reasonable minds can differ; harmonizing statutes supports applying fraudulent‑concealment to toll the CCA notice period when its elements are met. |
| Court of Claims jurisdiction over emergency managers | Plaintiffs: emergency managers acted as state officers/employees within scope and are subject to Court of Claims jurisdiction. | State: emergency managers are local/municipal actors, not state officers for CCA jurisdiction. | Held: emergency managers are state employees/administrative officers acting within statutory authority; Court of Claims has jurisdiction over official‑capacity claims. |
| Constitutional bodily‑integrity claim and availability of damages | Plaintiffs: deliberate decision to supply contaminated water and conceal harm violated substantive due process (bodily integrity); damages remedy appropriate because no adequate alternative. | Defendants: no cognizable constitutional violation; immunity bars damages; alternative statutory remedies available. | Held: pleadings allege conscience‑shocking deliberate indifference and state policy decisions; official‑policy requirement met; judicially inferred damage remedy appropriate at this stage; claim survives summary dismissal. |
| State‑created‑danger doctrine | Plaintiffs: due process includes state‑created‑danger cause of action for putting citizens at risk. | Defendants: doctrine requires third‑party violence; not applicable here. | Held: even if recognized, doctrine requires third‑party harm; plaintiffs allege direct state conduct, so state‑created‑danger claim fails. |
| Inverse condemnation (de facto taking) | Plaintiffs: supplying corrosive/contaminated water caused direct physical damage and property‑value loss—constitutes a taking. | Defendants: no affirmative government act directed at property; no unique injury. | Held: pleadings allege affirmative acts directly aimed at property, substantial causal link, and unique injury allegations—claim survives C(8) dismissal. |
| Official‑capacity claims against Governor and emergency managers | Plaintiffs: naming policymakers is necessary; claims are nominal official‑capacity suits against the State. | State: official‑capacity suits should be barred or unnecessary; Eleventh Amendment nuances. | Held: official‑capacity suits permitted; they are nominal and seek relief from the State consistent with Smith and related precedent. |
Key Cases Cited
- McCahan v. Brennan, 492 Mich. 730 (Mich. 2012) (CCA notice is a condition precedent; strict compliance ordinarily required)
- Rowland v. Washtenaw Co. Rd. Comm., 477 Mich. 197 (Mich. 2007) (clear statutory language must be enforced as written)
- Rusha v. Dep’t of Corrections, 307 Mich. App. 300 (Mich. Ct. App. 2014) (discussing harsh‑and‑unreasonable‑consequences exception to procedural bars and applying it to CCA notice)
- Smith v. Dep’t of Pub. Health, 428 Mich. 540 (Mich. 1987) (state constitutional violations may support a damages remedy in appropriate cases)
- Monell v. New York City Dep’t of Social Servs., 436 U.S. 658 (U.S. 1978) (municipal liability requires an official policy or custom)
- DeShaney v. Winnebago Co. Dep’t of Social Servs., 489 U.S. 189 (U.S. 1989) (no affirmative duty to protect from private violence absent custody‑type restraint; foundation for state‑created‑danger analysis)
- Pembaur v. City of Cincinnati, 475 U.S. 469 (U.S. 1986) (single decision by a policymaker can constitute official policy)
- Frank v. Linkner, 500 Mich. 133 (Mich. 2017) (accrual and limitations principles; additional damages do not reset accrual)
- Spiek v. Michigan Dep’t of Transp., 456 Mich. 331 (Mich. 1998) (inverse‑condemnation requires unique or special injury distinct from general public)
- Cartwright v. City of Marine City, 336 F.3d 487 (6th Cir. 2003) (elements of state‑created‑danger claim: affirmative act, special risk, knowledge)