*1 Wade v of 1990] WADE v DEPARTMENT OF CORRECTIONS 1989, 22, Lansing. Docket No. 113501. Submitted at November De 5, 1990. appeal applied cided March Leave to for. Wade, Department Gerald an inmate of the of Corrections Cold- facility, slipped grease water and fell on some or other sub- injured brought against stance and himself. He an action Claims, Department alleging of Corrections in the Court of plaintiff slipped the accumulation of the substance on was a department knowledge condition of which the had disposition summary and allowed to exist. Defendant moved for governmental immunity, based on failure to statе claim genuine court, lack of a issue of material fact. The Michael G. Harrison, J., granted summary disposition governmen- based on immunity, expressly declining tal to address whether there was genuine appealed. or was not a issue of material fact. Plaintiff Appeals Court of held: Plaintiff’s clаim is sufficient to withstand a motion for sum- mary disposition governmental immunity based on and failure to state a claim. Reversed and remanded. J., Mackenzie, dissented. She would hold that the building exception immunity the defective preserving integrity confined to the structural build- ings by keeping negli- them in and does not extend tо gent janitorial care. She would affirm. Immunity — Building Exception — Ac- Governmental Defective cumulation of Oil and Grease. Accumulation of oil and on the floors in a may constitute a condition sufficient to fall within building exception immunity the defective (MCL 691.1406; 3.996[106]). MSA Miller, T. James for plaintiff._ References 2d, Municipal, School, County, Liability Am Jur and State Tort 304; Penal and Correctional § Institutions 181. § Floors; See Index to Annotations under Governmental Immu- nity Privilege; Prisons and Prisoners. Opinion of the Court Kelley, Attorney General, Frank J. Louis J. Caruso, General, Houk, Solicitor and Rose A. As- Attorney General, sistant for defendant. *2 Murphy, P.J.,
Before: and and Mackenzie Cav- anagh, JJ.
Murphy, appеals right P.J. Plaintiff as of from granting an order of the trial court defendant’s disposition. summary motion for We reverse and proceedings. remand for further Michigan Department Plaintiff, a resident of the facility, complaint of Corrections Coldwater filed a against defendant after he fell on some or walking other substance as he was from the facil- ity mess hall. Plaintiff suffered a severe of fracture right patella. complaint alleged
Plaintiff’s that defendant had statutory duty pursuant a 3.996(106) 691.1406; to MCL MSA facility
to maintain the so as to avoid defective and conditions which could bodily injury. in result The condition of рlaintiff alleged knowledge which defendant had and which defendant allowed to exist was "an grease, oil, water, accumulation of food or other slippery matter in the corridor from the messhall premises.” [sic] to Unit No. C-29 of said disposition summary pur- Defendant for moved 2.116(C)(7),governmental immunity, suant to MCR (C)(8), failing as well (0(10), claim, as to state a and genuine no issue of material fact. The enunciating applicable court, lower after stan-. (C)(8) appeared motion, dard for a to decide the in motion defendant’s favor on the basis of MCR 2.116(C)(7). Nonetheless, it is clear that the lower court did nоt decide the matter on the basis of 2.116(0(10). dismissing plaintiff’s MCR com- plaint, the trial court stated: 1990] Wade of op Opinion the Court Court considers this under The motion the —ex- (10) aspects clusive of the of this —considers the light pleadings in motion reviews alone. The Court only pleadings. The motion is to be light in the to the nоn- considered moving most favorable responsibility require- It party. plaintiff allege immu- ment nity. avoidance of obvious, statutory basis is defect, there has in the but to be a defect Now, accumulation, a mere as has been here, accumulation, paragraph 10 of the stated complaint, oil, water, food, grease, slippery alleges say It way matter no a defect. didn’t what was defective. And the Court is satisfied that under those circumstances the motion should be granted, grant and the Court will the motion. (C)(10)
I I do not reach the motion because don’t necessary aspect think it’s оf the motion —that necessary purposes I think because don’t it’s today. this determination *3 argued that Rear We note defendant below that Health, 398; 430 Mich 424 don v of Mental (1988), plain 248 mandated the dismissal of NW2d tiff’s complaint. appeal, plaintiff Now, essen on argues tially have that the trial court should рublic building exception govern applied the to immunity an accumu mental to this case because a lation of oil or dangerous on a floor constitutes public of a and defective condition building. agree. We Supreme attempted Reardon, to
In our Court parameters stаtutory clarify the of the stating exception governmental immunity by to following: the surrounding the light In of the circumstances legislation governmental this
enactment of
[the
Legisla-
the
act],
persuaded that
immunity
we are
reading
the
expansive
not intend an
ture did
Instead,
conclude
building exception.
we
рublic
182 Mich
522
op
Opinion
the Couet
Legislature
the
exception
intended that
the
apply to facts similar
to the facts of Williams
Detroit,
231;
364 Mich
[Williams
NW2d
(1961)]
precipitated
case which
the statute in
—the
place.
words,
the first
In other
injury arising
an
dangerous
out of a
or defective physical condition
of the
This
conclusion is buttressed
language
the
chosen by
Legislature
the
in enacting
public
building exception. The ñrst
imposes
sentence
upon governmental agencies the duty
"repair
public
and
buildings
maintain
under their control
. . . .” In
Schools,
Bush v Oscoda Area
716;
(1979),
we conclude that tion apply does not under facts of these cases. [Reardon, supra, p Emphasis 417. added.] Since situations "similar to the in facts Wil liams” fall building exception, within the a closer Williams, look at Williams is necessary. City Detroit owned a which not had been rented or leased for It years. possible some to surmise that the building storage. was used for event,
In any incident, on the day the сity was abandoning the of the building use and remov- ing furniture. Plaintiffs decedent employed was a moving firm which had been hired city.
Employed in connection therewith was an eleva- tor which properly claims was not safe- guarded and maintained. The decedent was assist- ing carrying in a desk into said elevаtor at the 6th floor level of ward. He was walking and was back- proceeding opening toward an in the elevator any way, guarded protected which not was it space
as is claimed. There was a between the elevator floor and the side of the shaft approximately inсhes in width. Mr. Williams fell from the elevator floor down this shaft and was brought killed. Suit theory was on the city defendant guilty and the individual defendants were negligence constituting proximate [Williams, cause of the supra, p death. 233. Em- phasis added.] Since Williams stands as the touchstone de- termining whether exception аpplies particular situation, to a fact we must evaluate the facts of against this case that standard.
In Williams, there was a condition in *5 App 519 182 Mich Opinion op the Court building’s system. case, there elevator In this dangerous a condition in that the floor of the was public safely. slippery was too to walk on Again, Supreme in we note that Court Rear- emphasized duty don that the and main- premises clearly physical tain the relates to premises. condition of the that it is We believe physical prem- axiomatic that the condition of the public building physical ises of a includes the building’s condition of the floor. Ray Dep’t Services,
In
of Social
(1986),
55; 401
NW2d
lv den
We while Reardon forth set cer- tain limitations on the
exception, Supreme we must stress that the Court focusing nonetheless was on factual situations totally which were different from the facts in the Reardon, case at bar. both cases decided intervening party there was an third who as- public building. saulted the victim The as- anything saults rather than related to building, were held to be the causes of the victims’ injuries. case, however, In there is no inter- vening party plaintiff’s inju- third which cаused plaintiff Rather, ries. fell because of an oil or grease and, accumulation which covered the floor purposes, for all intents and became the upon Simply, surface which walked. 1990] Wade v of Corrections Opinion op the Court physical condition the floor was a сondition of itself. Nevertheless, we can envision a strict read- ing might suggest of Reardon that the facts of this building exception case are not within the because part condition was not of the build- ing reject any interpreta- However, we such *6 example, argue tion. For tile or a few would that a broken
hole the floor of a physical would not constitute a condition of the building any, little, if We see rational dis- dangerous physical tinction between the condition which is caused a hole or a broken tile a floor and a floor covered with an accumulation of greаse. oil or The result is the same. Both situa- public injury tions of the involve risk of to the because physical premises. condition of the proposition If Reardon stands for the that building'exception applies in the case of the bro- ken tile because that is a and defective itself, cоndition of the and the exception apply not does to the case of the part accumulation, or oil because the oil is not Supreme itself, Court has set purpose forth a test which fails to reflect the true building exception of the immu- nity. government clearly statutory duty has a public buildings to maintain its so that the mem- public public premises bers of the on who are are protected from and defective conditions building. of the light foregoing, plain-
In of the we conclude that tiff’s claim is one which survives a motion for summary disposition grounds immunity on the 2.116(C)(7). granted by law, MCR We also believе alleged that state a claim MCR has upon sufficient facts which granted. which relief can be
2.116(C)(8). plain- note, however, We do by Mackenzie, Dissent J. tiffs complaint has not been tested lower court through application of a motion for sum- disposition 2.116(0(10), mary pursuant to MCR no genuine issue of material fact. Since the lower court avoided clearly any discussion of a motion on basis, such that matter appeal. not before us on conclusion, we plaintiffs believe that com- plaint set forth a factual situation which falls existing parameters within the build- ing exception More- immunity. over, plaintiffs complaint upon stated a claim granted. Therefore, which relief can be we reverse the lower granting court’s order defendant’s mo- tion for summary disposition and remand matter proceedings further consistent with this opinion.
Reversed and remanded.
Cavanagh, J., concurred. *7 (dissenting). Mackenzie, J. I disagree with the majority’s conсlusion that this case comes within the defective exception to 3.996(106). MCL immunity, 691.1406; MSA 3.996(106) 691.1406; MCL MSA provides in part: agencies obligation Governmental have the to repair public and maintain buildings under their open control when public. by for use members of the agencies Governmental bodily are liable for injury gеrous property damage resulting from a dan- public
or defective condition of a if the agency had actual or construc- and, knowledge tive of the defect for a reasonable acquiring knowledge, time after remedy failed to the condition or to take action reаsonably neces- protect sary public against to the the condition. Dep’t 527 Wade of v 1990] by Mackenzie, Dissent J. Knowledge of the and defective condi- of to tion and time the presumed conclusively same shall be when such apparent as to be readily defect existed so ordinаry to an person period days observant for a of 90 longer injury place. before the took As a condi- any recovery injuries by tion to sustained any reason of or defective build- ing, injured person, 120 days within from the occurred, injury time the shall serve a notice on responsible governmental agency of the occur- injury rence of the and the defect. The notice shall defect, specify the exact location and nature of the injury sustained and the names of the wit- nesses known at the time the claimant. It reading is clear from a of the statute that its is confined in- preserving the structural tegrity public buildings keeping them in repair. case,
In.
there was nothing about
the build-
ing
foreign
itself that was defective. The
substance
part
building. Compare
on the floor was not
Schools,
Baraga
385;
Velmer
424
v
Area
430 Mich
(1988).
NW2d 770
There is no indication that
substance
on
floor
was
due to a structural
flaw
leaking
such as a
pipe. Compare Ray
Services,
55;
Social
307
NW2d
(1987).
(1986), lv
den
Mich
There is no
allegation
foreign
substance accumulated
designed
due to a
floor or a
con-
defectively
floor
Compare
structed with unsafe materials.
Davis v
(1986).
Detroit, 149
App 249;
Mich