Sherri Glezman v. Traverse City Area Public Schools
344477
| Mich. Ct. App. | Jun 11, 2019Background
- Traverse City Area Public Schools (defendant) installed a new heavier right entrance door at Traverse City West High School in Jan 2016 as part of a redesign; safety hardware (restraining chain and non-conflicting handles) included in the redesign was not yet installed when the new door went into service.
- The athletic-wing entrance had a history of wind-related failures of the right door’s control arm, causing recurring repairs and eventual damage to the old door.
- Approximately an hour before a basketball game, the right door’s control arm failed and the door began swinging freely; about an hour later plaintiff Sherri Glezman opened the center door and her thumb was crushed between the center and right door handles when the right door was thrust open.
- Surveillance showed the control arm failure occurred before the injury; school officials acknowledged the safety hardware was missing and had decided to install the door before the hardware arrived.
- Plaintiff sued under the public-building exception (MCL 691.1406) alleging failure to maintain/repair the door and that defendant had actual or constructive notice; defendant moved for summary disposition arguing the claim alleged a design defect and that it lacked notice.
- The trial court denied summary disposition; the Court of Appeals affirmed, holding the absence of installed safety hardware was a failure to maintain (not a design defect) and defendant had actual notice of the missing hardware.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the absence of safety hardware in the installed door is a design defect (immune) or a failure to repair/maintain (actionable under public-building exception) | The redesign included the safety hardware; not installing it was a failure to maintain the newly designed door | Installing a new door without the hardware was a design/renovation decision, not restoration to a prior condition, thus immune | Held: Absence of the safety hardware was a failure to maintain, not a design defect; public-building exception applies |
| Whether defendant had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition in time to remedy it | Plaintiff: Defendant knew the hardware was missing for at least a week and had history of control-arm problems; that is sufficient notice | Defendant: No employee knew of the control-arm failure during the hour before the accident; it could not have discovered the failure in time | Held: Relevant notice period is when defendant knew safety hardware was missing; defendant had actual notice for at least a week, creating an issue for trial |
| Whether plaintiff’s claim survives governmental immunity at summary disposition | Plaintiff: Claim falls within public-building exception because defect was a failure to maintain and defendant had notice | Defendant: Immunity applies because claim rests on design/installation choices and lack of timely notice of the control-arm break | Held: Claim survives summary disposition; question of fact remains whether failure to install hardware caused the injury |
| Whether defendant showed the installed safety devices would not have prevented the injury | Plaintiff: No affirmative proof by defendant; factual dispute whether the intended devices would have prevented harm | Defendant: Argues devices (e.g., chain) might have failed under wind, so causation uncertain | Held: Defendant offered no evidence that the new hardware would have failed; causation remains a factual question for trial |
Key Cases Cited
- Renny v. Dep’t of Transportation, 478 Mich 490 (2007) (distinguishes design defects from repair/maintain obligations under the public-building exception)
- Tellin v. Forsyth Twp., 291 Mich App 692 (2011) (applies Renny and explains when a design decision can later become a maintenance failure)
- Stringwell v. Ann Arbor Pub. School Dist., 262 Mich App 709 (2004) (operation of public school is a governmental function for immunity analysis)
- Maskery v. Bd. of Regents of Univ. of Mich., 468 Mich 609 (2003) (addresses governmental immunity principles)
- Ali v. City of Detroit, 218 Mich App 581 (1996) (explains actual and constructive notice under the public-building exception)