Bandfield v. Wood

Decision Date19 March 1985
Docket NumberNo. 16,Docket No. 67682,16
Citation364 N.W.2d 280,421 Mich. 774
PartiesJames BANDFIELD, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. Donald WOOD; Lieutenant Roberts; Robert Mallette; Perry Johnson; Paul Maynard and John Doe, Employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections, jointly and severally, Defendants-Appellants. Calendar
CourtMichigan Supreme Court

John A. Obee, John G. Konkel, Charfoos, Christensen, Gilbert & Archer, P.C., Detroit, for plaintiff-appellee.

Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Louis J. Caruso, Sol. Gen., Thomas C. Nelson, Asst. Atty. Gen., Corrections Div., Criminal Appeals Section, Lansing, for defendants-appellants.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff was an inmate at a small minimum security facility operated by the Department of Corrections. He went to the facility's first-aid room complaining of a cough and was given what appeared to be cough syrup. Plaintiff drank the liquid and suffered injury. Subsequent analysis disclosed that the liquid he drank contained lye or other chemical substances generally found in cleaning fluid. Plaintiff instituted this negligence action against the individual defendants, employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections. We granted leave following the Court of Appeals reversal of the defendants' summary judgment.

Pursuant to the rule announced in the recently decided Ross v. Consumers Power Co., 420 Mich. 567, 363 N.W.2d 641 (1984), we need only determine whether the activities complained of in the instant case are "discretionary-decisional" or "ministerial-operational."

The Court of Appeals analyzed plaintiff's negligence allegations as follows:

"Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleged that defendants failed to properly supervise the employees and personnel entrusted with the care of the first-aid room. Since this contention can be readily construed as an allegation that defendants' supervisory acts fell short of established procedures, this Court finds that defendants' complained-of acts were ministerial. See Vargo v. Svitchan, [100 Mich.App. 809, 816, 301 N.W.2d 1 (1980) ] and Cook [ v. Bennett, 94 Mich.App. 93, 101, 288 N.W.2d 609 (1979) ]. Plaintiff's allegations that defendants breached their duties to keep the first-aid area locked and to see that the medicines were not tampered with can similarly be construed as allegations that defendants neglected to follow established security procedures, and thus that these alleged acts or omissions were ministerial. Therefore, the lower ...

To continue reading

Request your trial
22 cases
  • Hickey v. Zezulka
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • January 1, 1992
    ...actions to which governmental immunity would not apply. Ross, supra, 420 Mich. at 651, 363 N.W.2d 641; Bandfield v. Wood, 421 Mich. 774, 364 N.W.2d 280 (1985). With this background in mind, we undertake a factual analysis of the conduct at issue to determine whether Zezulka should be entitl......
  • Canon v. Thumudo
    • United States
    • Michigan Supreme Court
    • May 3, 1988
    ...so the operative term would be 'ministerial-operational' acts." Ross, supra, pp. 634-635, 363 N.W.2d 641. See also Bandfield v. Wood, 421 Mich. 774; 364 N.W.2d 280 (1985). The Ross decision directs courts to look to "the specific acts complained of, rather than the general nature of the act......
  • Tobias v. Phelps
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • December 17, 1986
    ...See also, Bandfield v. Wood, 421 Mich. 774, 364 N.W.2d 280 (1985). In numerous, pre-Ross decisions, this Court concluded that medical decision-making is inherently [144 MICHAPP 281] discretionary. Adams v. Northville State Hospital, 131 Mich.App. 583, 585, 345 N.W.2d 207 (1983); Hamilton v.......
  • Meadows v. City of Detroit, Docket No. 93451
    • United States
    • Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US
    • January 21, 1988
    ...follow established administrative procedures are not shielded by governmental immunity. Young, supra; Brown, supra; Bandfield v. Wood, 421 Mich. 774, 364 N.W.2d 280 (1985). Nevertheless, we affirm the trial court's result concerning these officials because, after reviewing plaintiff's claim......
  • Request a trial to view additional results

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT