*1 Michigan Reports. only, say and the court whether a court,' decree shall be entered completed record. agree All real that the matters at issue doubt- less would have been determined been we likewise had place
seated chancellor. these circumstances affirmance is order. LEWIS GENESEE COUNTY. Agencies op
1. Counties —Medical Care Facilities — State. Counties social function as welfare establishing operating care facilities or unfortu- persons nate creating State statute prescribing welfare and its county departments (CL 1948, et seq.). 400.1 § Hospitals County Facility Agency— 2. Medical Care —State Immunity Liability Negligence. for Defendant and defendant immune agents, servants, of functions caring plaintiff, hospital at being operated had been established and was to stat- conferring power ute upon State social welfare commission, since defendants were (CL 1948, amended).
Appeal (Donn D.), from Genesee; Parker J. Sub- April (Calendar mitted 1963. No. Docket No. 50,113.) May Decided 9, 1963. References for Points in Headnotes Jur, 14 Am Counties 3.
[1] [2] Jur, 14 Am Counties 48-50; Jur, States, 49 Am Territories, Dependencies Ill Genesee against County Emma Lewis Case County both Welfare, Board Social and Genesee personal corporate, for sustained *2 bodies Hospital. patient at while a Walter Winchester appeals. Af- motion. Plaintiff Case dismissed firmed. plaintiff. Fischer,
Howard Desenberg, Purdy, Bayer é Glover and John Moll, David, for defendants. G. brought Plaintiff this action C. J. Carr, damages county to recover
circuit court Genesee for injuries to have claimed been sustained her. alleged filed that the defendants declaration corporate pursuant and that bodies they operated a medical had statute established facility known as the within said Walter Hospital. alleged Plaintiff further that Winchester during she a resi- month of was December, that as a result dent agents, part negligence on of servants, of defendants’ sustaining employees, fell, she damages. recover for which she a motion to dismiss On behalf asserting were immune that suit filed, was liability ployees. Following em for the claimed circuit before granted, judge judge the circuit the motion to dismiss was concluding under founded that was well was called to Attention also decisions of this Court. allega no filed contained the fact declaration presented plaintiff’s claim had been tion that supervisors or to either the the Cited welfare. board of social Constitu 9, of was article connection 1961Eev (1908) tion and CL .370 5.521). granting order entered the mo plaintiff appealed. tion
The defendant the social welfare act of the No 280.* As amended, said act is entitled: protect “An act to welfare of the of this State; other persons; provide compliance or unfortunate by ty to the this State with the of the social securi- provide protection, act; welfare and assistance aged persons, dependent children, blind, permanently totally disabled; to create a of social department; and duties of said intercounty for the interstate and transfer of de- pendents city depart- ; to create *3 ments of social to create within the departments, of social aid and bureaus certain other pre- bureaus, divisions and thereunder; offices to powers departments, scribe the and of said duties appeals officers;
bureaus in cer- powers cases; tain the of and duties the State of social welfare with city departments of social wel- prescribe penalties fare; and to for the violation of provisions of act.” the provisions the of statute are in accord with- general purpose the as in Ob- the title. viously legislature intention of was the public cover the field of welfare in the of interest adopt safeguards of the in- objectives carrying sure out of the to be agencies specificpow- attained, vest certain operation and duties essential to the successful ers plan general as outlined. The State social Stat [*] 1961 Cum 400.1 et Supp as amended seq,). Ann 1960 Rev and (cid:127) with invested welfare commission to the general with reference control charged carrying with of requirements. legislative out quoted, the over above indicated the title As plan district, the creation all city county welfare. The defendant came existence into
board ap being accordingly, thereof 1 of the 3 members by pointed welfare commission supervisors. here Defendants subject provisions of the are to the vested them discussing provisions Without statute. case the that in the instant we conclude detail, acting, with claim of defendants that involved, reference to the matters legisla with the act of the is accord ture. significance particular are the Of relating to in each
statue of a quired the establishment plans facility, are re for which approved by to be eommission. express au with The latter commission is vested thority approve certify plans, and also to opera adopt reasonable rules with reference tion of the when established. The enforce by appropriate made is authorized ment orders so that, The claim of court action. the defendants per relating reference to functions matters they have acted law, under the formed solely State welfare agencies well founded. is *4 judge holding of the circuit liability for the acts are immune from 16.446). Reporter. 1960 Rev § See — 1948, CL 16.458). Reporter. 1948, 400.58, 400.45, amended (Stat Ann 1960 Rev No 170 (Stat Ann §§ 16.445,
114
370
agents
instant case is
accord with
in a
decisions
this Court
number of
among
may
cases,
be cited:
v. Berrien
Maffei
County,
Highway
JJ., J. with Carr, concurred (concurring). J. McDowell Souris, Highway majority Commissioner, 365 Mich present members this Court limited the scope controlling opinion signed which I City Detroit, Williams 364 Mich I ex pressed my Sayers views thereon in v. School Dis trict No. Fractional, Mich 221-225. Sub ject Sayers, to I views I concur re luctantly today’s decision. J., concurred J.
Smith, Souris,