*1 Michigan Reports. [Dee. v. McDOWELL STATE HIGHWAY COMMISSIONER. Repeal—Courts. 1. Statutes — judiciary right power repeal has no to statutes. Immunity 2. Torts —Governmental —States. highway negligence The State commissioner is not liable for in maintaining high-way alleged injuries have resulted in plaintiffs through his failure to remove an accumulation of a water from State permitted trunldine which was dangerous into a traffic, freeze sheet of ice where the- legislature’s governmental abolition of the defense of im- munity liability from so has been modified as to render the again (CL 1948, State immune 691.141). such tort § Highway Negligence. 3. Costs —State Trunkline allegedly damages costs are allowed action to recover by negligence maintaining caused State State highway. trunkline Appeal Quinn Court of Claims; (Timothy C.), J., presiding. April 6, (Docket 1961. Submitted Nos. 25, 26, 48,757, 48,759.) Calendar Nos. 48,758, 28, 1961. Decided December companion Three cases Irene Irene McDowell, minor, McDowell next Gribson, friend of Larry and Prank McDowell against Mackie, John State’ Highway Commissioner, Depart- State Highway [1] [2] [3] Personal 50 Am 40 ALR 25 Am Am Jur, Jur, Jur, Highways Reperences Costs 37. Statutes 57 ALR' 1037. public por 602-604. official for Points personal Headnotes on highway. 1961] McDowell Highway Come. State Michigan, injuries and the ment, sus- tained automobile accident caused defective highway. consolidated and appeal. condition missed Cases dis- *2 on motion. Plaintiffs Affirmed. plaintiffs. Gadola, Jr., Paul for V. Attorney Adams, General,
Paul L. Samuel J. Burgoyne, Torina, Bert As- General, Solicitor Attorney General, sistant defendants. City Detroit, Mich J. Williams v. Black, of September
231, handed down foretold the result 22d, opinion By separate in that it these suits. ease pro- that the was made clear spectively, Court had overruled, the rule of tort —from municipal corporations; —of no more and less. today considering opinions are “We not —as suggest govern- of both doctrine Brothers —‘the immunity.’ mental That doctrine within includes purview departments, its sions, boards, the State and ‘its commis- agencies.’ arms or institutions, through the court of act, CL 691.101 claims (Stat Supp §§27.3548[1]- 691.122 Ann 1959 Cum [23]). considering 27.3548 We are the common-law municipal corporations that rule are immune from liability. ‘Municipal corporations’ tort are distinc- tively (see Township, definable Hall v. Ira 348 Mich Metropolitan
402, and Bacon v. Kent-Ottawa Water Authority, 159), and care be taken should today’s lawyer that decision is confined thereto. No public left should be are to wonder whether other bodies scope included within of what we do this (Williams City case of supra, Detroit, Williams.” page 278.) at plaintiffs attempt statements claim department hold a of the State, State, and so re- sponsible damages question for a tort. No [Dec. Reports. a court of other relief or nuisance,
abatement (see example equity might properly grant Hunt 309), Highway Commissioner, Mich v. State judgments on review these or be before us could of claims. court respective now before claim, statements usT separate alternatively by 2 counts. The aver the tort highway department alleges that the first count actionably negligent failing remove or was pool large surface “a water” from the of' drain pool that the US-10 result trunkline traffic-dangerous of ice. The sheet froze into alleges failure created count same second and continued public Bach count sets nuisance. plaintiff personal forth that the suffered damage negligence' consequential on account such or nuisance. *3 attorney general, the the court
On motion of assign- claim, claims ing immunity all statements dismissed such liability. of the This defendants unitary appeal followed. tersely put attorney general clearly
The has and mandatory words reason for affirmance of the these judgments. Having quoted part relevant the Michigan opinion Mead Com- Public Service says mission, he 168, 173, his brief: legislature received, “The considered, has and upon past, in the as acted such recommendations is by 237, the demonstrated and acts enactment PA No 1943, by 1945, the enactment of PA No 87*. sovereign immunity was the defense first except then abolished and restored as to causes of upon operation negligent action based owned motor vehicles. of State- * * * the doctrine However, sovereign immunity presently exists in Michigan ‘king is not the can do archaic, obsolete, [41]). Reporter. [*] CL 1948, 691.141 (Stat Ann 1959 Cum Snpp 27.3548, McDowell-y. Highway 1961] Come. pattern but consists 1066, edition
wrong’ its pres choices which achieved legislative deliberate concerned, by far the ent so as State itself form, 1945, the thereof took effect of PA No the amendment 87, enactment and 33, PA No 33. PA by Since after the events which rise to these gave that act .abolish .actions, cannot serve to establish or However, with rights respect appellants herein.
the fact the amends a in 1960 legislature statute does show that the legislature continuing is giving, to, consideration the to, and with acting respect doctrine of If re- sovereign the immunity. expréss immuni establishments doctrine of sovereign the ty by legislature 1945 is obsolete, illogical, harsh, et then the cruel, cetera, should be legislature called upon modify or abolish the doctrine. far
“So as the State itself is the doc- concerned, trine of it sovereign exists presently is a creature of the The doc- legislature. trine has been modified the abolished by legislature, the legislature, re-established legislature, the .and further modified by legislature.” has no judiciary right or power repeal stat- utes. As said attorney general, legisla- ture has willed that and present be defendants remain immune from torts such as these plaintiffs have alleged. stand, There must they until the legally, legislature wills to the contrary. affirm,
I vote to without an award costs. J., Carr, Dethmers, C. Kavanagh, and Kelly, JJ., Black, concurred *4 in these (concurring). Plaintiffs
Edwards, were in an accident which injured cases occurred on of US-10 Genesee The essence county. stated in 2 plaintiffs’ the action alternative counts is [Dec. Reports. allowing negligent were that defendants
claim highway, the form on ice to pool water and of were filed failing The actions remove same. in the court by there Circuit and dismissed claims of governmental im- grounds Judge of the on Quinn es- munity. Judge counts held that both Quinn agents against of the sentially actions tort stated Judge agree Quinn Michigan. We of State holding ordinary counts are in both as stated that actions time further that as actions, tort and they the defense were barred of occurrence their City immunity. governmental Williams Detroit, dispose of all which needs be said
While this is purported difference cases, discussion these between a the position position the the the State municipality governmental moves as to actually quote language on relied the is us regard: in this 24 of Act No 135 of the Public Acts “Section Acts Act No 237 the Public
1939, amended as (CL hereby repealed.” 1945, PA No 87 1943, is Supp § [Stat 27- 1948, note Ann Cum 691.141, .3548(42)]). By legislature repealed 1939,. PA statute, the this PA No the- 135, 24, amended right being legislative grant amendment the maintaining against the State. en- tort actions legislature statute, actment of this moved judicial governmental immun- abolish the doctrine of repealing legislature ity. By this re- statute, the prior posture statutory turned to its which was no provision subject on whatsoever. proposed this
It now State citizens maintaining be held to be barred from tort should against by statutory actions enactments *5 1961] Highway'Comb. v. McDowell negation. undersigned achieved utter wliicli agree logic. to such cannot
Affirmed. costs. concurred J., Souris, Edwards, part took J., in the decision M. Otis Smith, of this case. WOODARD SAGINAW CITY INC. LINES, Company Duty Discharge Passengers to 1. Carriers —Bus Place. Safe Notwithstanding a bus as a common carrier of company passen- gers have the same does'not railroad or street duty railway which has exclusive control over their and other platforms embarking disembarking for passengers, areas provided discharge does nevertheless bus have a its company duty passengers at a safe reasonably plaee. Company Passengers Alight. —Safe Place for 2. Same —Bus passengers, A bus as common carrier of bus company, stops passengers at where it is not safe for plaee reasonably alight passenger injured through liable to a a fall caused stepping her bus at such unsafe plaee. Company Alight— Passenger 3. Same —Bus —Safe Place for of Pact —Evidence. Question nonjury passenger injuries Evidence action presented stepping sustained when she after a hole on snow- into slipped [1-3, [4] Liability Liability while 3 Am alighted, 948. 5] 10 Am Jur, alighting of motor carrier of motorbus caused References Appeal Jur, from vehicle. Carriers and Error conditions carrier for Points 1386-1388, to' 9'ALR2d at passenger plaee or death of 1395. Headnotes 938. alighting. injured passenger through 58 ALR2d who has fall