*1 App 144 v McINTYRE POPE 20, 1982, at Detroit. Decided Submitted October Docket No. 62351. appeal apрlied 10, 1983. for. Leave to March minor, injured physical Pope, in a school was Popе, by another student. Robin she was attacked class when Carolyn individu- by and her next friend damages ally, brought educa- an for action treacher, Nancy McIntyre, the student who caused judg- MсIntyre summary injury, moved for Richardo Wordlaw. governmental immunity. The ment on the basis of Court, Gilbert, L. grantеd by Circuit Alice the Oakland summary judgment grant of of in favor McIntyre. Held: immunity public employee applies to a 1. Governmental allegedly of his conduct falls within whose herein, allegеd duty have been breached 2. to Because exercising reasonable carе students, imposed upon McIntyre alleged negligence public employment, fell within scope Affirmed. Bronson, J., separately to but concurred the result wrote express objection his to continued use employment it cases because produced arbitrаry to the reasons has results often unrelated granting immunity. Scope Immunity Employees — — Em- 1. Public Govеrnmental ployment. his tort A is immune from suit for where scope of tortious conduct falls within the ment. Employees Scope Immunity — — 2. Em- Governmental Public ployment Duty.— act falls within Reference for Points in Headnotes [1, 2d, School, Liability Municipal, Tort § 57 Am Jur and State 2] have been breaсhed is public employment. because of the Becker), & Becker Van Cleef Frank G. *2 plaintiffs.
Berry, Berry), Puleo & Nazar Noeske defendant. Maher, P.J.,
Before: R. M. and Bronson Cynar, JJ. 1977, December,
Per Curiam. defendant Mc- Intyre a teacher at Clinton Middle School Oak Park. Plaintiff then a young woman of 13 years, was a student defendant’s her, class. According to on 5, 1977, Wordlaw, December classmate, Richardo and injured attacked her while attending defen- dant’s class. mother,
Robin Pope, through her аnd Carolyn Pope, individually, brought suit 27, on Wordlaw September 7, 1981, July On defendant moved for sum- 117.2(1) mary judgment pursuant 1963, to GCR on ground protected that she plaintiffs’ governmental immunity. The trial court granted the mоtion.1 from the trial court’s order defendant’s Summary judgment.
The sole issue on appeal whether trial court erred in granting defendant’s motion for summary judgment. consider, We must whether defendant was governmental sheltered by immunity for liability damages.
This Court split on the correct standard аpply in deciding a public when employee enjoys 1 thereafter, Shortly judgment against sеcured default party appeal. Wordlaw. Wordlaw is not a to this App 144 124 Mich
146 have held Some immunity. is immune a rather discretionary involved conduct Nienow, e.g., Willis See, ministerial aсts. than Fuhrm- (1982); 273 317 NW2d App App Hattaway, ann v Bennett, 288 Cook (1981); App 379 (1979). that a panels have found 609 Other NW2d is immune when his act See, e.g., Detroit, 595 121; 328 NW2d App Pomilee Corp, 119 v Cranetrol App Mich Shwary (1982); Beecher School Lewis v 736; 326 627 NW2d System, App NW2d Mich NW2d Bd of Everhart v Roseville Supreme The *3 which is definitivеly not stated yet Court has However, has most where the Court applied. to be v Area issuе, Bush Oscoda considered the recently Schools, 405 Mich
Lockaby
County,
v Wayne
(1979),
sepаrate
in
justices,
a
majority
test.
applied
the
opinions,
System, supra,
v Beecher School
p 111.
See Lewis
hold,
is
that
We
where his
immune
conduct falls within the
plaintiffs
allege
complaint,
their
to exer-
"duty
breached her
negligently
cise reasonable care and
children”,
Pope. including
school
act
employment only
be-
to have been breаched
Galli v
public
cause
See
by Bronson,
Concurrence
J.
(1976)
527; Kirkeby,
NW2d 149
J., dissenting); Lovitt v Concord School
(Coleman,
Dist,
(1975),
App 593;
Affirmed. Defendant
tax costs.
may
(concurring). Although
Bronson,
I authored
opinion
111 Mich App
(1981),
I concur in the result.