Fane v. DETROIT LIBRARY COM'N
| Decision Date | 24 July 2001 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 5.,Docket No. 4,Docket No. Calendar,Docket No. 116708,Docket No. 116711 |
| Citation | 465 Mich. 68,631 N.W.2d 678 |
| Parties | Connie FANE and Charles Fane, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. DETROIT LIBRARY COMMISSION, Defendant-Appellee. Karen L. Cox and Norman W. Cox, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, Defendant-Appellee. |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Lopatin, Miller, Freedman, Bluestone, Herskovic & Domol (by Richard E. Shaw), Southfield, MI, for plaintiffs-appellants in Fane.
Law Offices of R. Thomas Bidari, P.C. (by Ronald M. Haystead), Wyandotte, MI, for plaintiffs-appellants in Cox.
Clark, Hill, P.L.C. (by David S. Mendelson), Birmingham, MI, for defendant-appellee in Fane.
Lacey & Jones (by Charles J. Hurbis, Mary F. Clinton, and Michael T. Reinholm), Ann Arbor, MI, for defendant-appellee in Cox.
Jennifer M. Granholm, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Mark S. Meadows, Assistant Attorney General, Lansing, MI, for amicus curiae, Michigan Department of Management and Budget.
These consolidated cases question the scope of the public building exception to governmental immunity1 in light of this Court's ruling in Horace v. City of Pontiac, 456 Mich. 744, 575 N.W.2d 762 (1998). The parties in Fane dispute whether the elevated terrace where plaintiff fell is part of Detroit's main public library building. In Cox, this Court must determine whether a portable ramp placed at a doorstep is part of the Fairlane Estate building in Dearborn.
We conclude that the public building exception can apply to parts of a building that extend beyond the walls. We hold the public building exception applicable under the undisputed facts in Fane v. Detroit Library Commission, because the terrace is part of the building. Hence, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.
In Cox v. Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, applying the undisputed facts, we find that the ramp is not part of the building. Because the public building exception does not apply, we affirm the Court of Appeals decision.
On October 21, 1995, Connie Fane was walking toward the main entrance of the Detroit Public Library. She climbed several stairs to a broad stone terrace that gives access to the doors of the library. After she had taken several steps on the terrace, the heel of her shoe caught on a raised portion of the stonework. She fell as a result and was injured. She and her husband, Charles, filed a complaint against the Detroit Library Commission. They alleged that, under the public building exception to governmental immunity, the commission violated its statutory duty to repair and maintain the terrace in a safe condition.
The commission sought summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (C)(10), arguing that governmental immunity bars plaintiffs' claim. The parties disputed whether the terrace was part of the building for the purpose of the public building exception. They agreed that the fall did not occur in the building itself but on the terrace approximately thirty-five yards from the entrance. Plaintiffs contended that the terrace is part of the permanent structure of the library building; it is physically attached to the building, and it provides the sole access to the main entrance.
When the trial court denied the commission's motion, the commission filed an appeal. In lieu of granting leave, the Court of Appeals, citing Horace, remanded for entry of an order granting summary disposition for the commission.2 This Court vacated the Court of Appeals decision and remanded the case for consideration with Cox. 459 Mich. 944, 590 N.W.2d 65 (1999).3
On remand, the Court of Appeals reversed the lower court's denial of summary disposition, again relying on this Court's decision in Horace.4 The Court concluded that the trial court had erred as a matter of law in finding that the terrace was part of the building. It noted that Connie Fane was not alleged to have fallen in the building, and it determined that the elevated terrace was "merely contiguous" and not part of the building itself.
The appeals court remanded the case to the trial court with instructions to enter an order of summary disposition in favor of the commission. This Court granted leave to appeal, ordering the case to be argued and submitted with Cox. 463 Mich.____, 620 N.W.2d 305 (2000).
On August 21, 1994, Karen Cox was visiting the Henry Ford estate to attend her niece's wedding. As she walked from the building to an outdoor porch, she stepped on a ramp that had been positioned at the doorstep. The heel of her shoe caught in a space between the door and the ramp, and the ramp slipped, causing her to fall.
In a multicount complaint, Karen and her husband, Norman, sued the Board of Regents of the University of Michigan, the owners of the property. They alleged that the ramp was a dangerous or defective condition and that the board breached its duty under the public building exception to governmental immunity by failing to secure it in a proper fashion.
The board moved for summary disposition, arguing that the public building exception did not apply. The board contended that, because it was not affixed to the building, the ramp was not part of the building itself. Plaintiffs responded that a reasonable trier of fact could conclude that the ramp was part of the building, notwithstanding that it was portable and unattached.
The trial court granted the board's motion for summary disposition, citing MCR 2.116(C)(7). The Court of Appeals denied plaintiffs' delayed application for leave to appeal.5 This Court remanded to the Court of Appeals for consideration as on leave granted. 459 Mich. 883, 587 N.W.2d 283 (1998).
On remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed the grant of summary disposition in favor of the board.6 Relying on this Court's decision in Horace and a fixtures analysis, the court determined that the ramp was not a fixture or an integral part of the building.
The Court concluded that the trial court had properly found that the public building exception was not applicable.7 This Court granted leave to appeal, ordering the case to be argued and submitted with Fane. 463 Mich.____, 620 N.W.2d 305 (2000).
In both cases, the Court of Appeals upheld summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7). We review decisions on summary disposition motions de novo. Sewell v. Southfield Pub. Schs., 456 Mich. 670, 674, 576 N.W.2d 153 (1998). Under MCR 2.116(C)(7), summary disposition is proper when a claim is barred by immunity granted by law. To survive such a motion, the plaintiff must allege facts justifying the application of an exception to governmental immunity. Wade v. Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich. 158, 164, 483 N.W.2d 26 (1992). We consider all documentary evidence submitted by the parties, accepting as true the contents of the complaint unless affidavits or other appropriate documents specifically contradict them. Sewell, supra at 674, 576 N.W.2d 153; MCR 2.116(G)(5).
Under M.C.L. § 691.1407(1), a government agency is generally immune from suit for actions undertaken in the performance of its governmental functions. However, this broad immunity is limited by some narrowly drawn exceptions. Jackson v. Detroit, 449 Mich. 420, 427, 537 N.W.2d 151 (1995). The present appeal involves the public building exception to governmental immunity, which provides in pertinent part:
It is the third element of this test that is at issue in the present appeal, whether a dangerous or defective condition of the public building itself exists.
The Court of Appeals determined that neither the terrace nor the ramp is part of the buildings in question, relying on this Court's decision in Horace. Horace was a consolidated appeal involving two different sets of facts, both of which involved injuries from defects in walkways.8 The first concerned a hole or crack eighteen to twenty-eight feet from the entrance doors of the Silverdome in Pontiac. The second involved a hole in a walkway leading to the entrance of a building at a rest area on I-75.
The issue in Horace was whether the public building exception applies to dangerous or defective conditions of areas outside and adjacent to entrances or exits of public buildings. Horace, supra at 746, 575 N.W.2d 762. The Court concluded that "the ground adjacent to a public building is [not] a public...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Mazumder v. Univ. Of Mich.
...other appropriate documents specifically contradict them." [Waltz, supra at 647-648, 677 N.W.2d 813, quoting Fane v. Detroit Library Comm., 465 Mich. 68, 74, 631 N.W.2d 678 (2001).] This Court considers de novo the applicability of equitable doctrines. Yankee Springs Twp. v. Fox, 264 Mich.A......
-
Renny v. Dept. of Transp.
...note that the propriety of a claim under the public building exception premised on a lack of safety devices is also undermined by Fane v. Detroit Library Comm30—a decision authored by the dissent. In Fane, we held under the facts of that case that an elevated terrace was "of a public buildi......
-
Henry v. Dow Chem. Co.
...addressing a motion under MCR 2.116(C)(7), we consider all documentary evidence submitted by the parties, Fane v. Detroit Library Comm. , 465 Mich. 68, 74, 631 N.W.2d 678 (2001), and we "accept as true the allegations of the complaint unless contradicted by the parties' documentary submissi......
-
Wold Architects and Engineers v. Strat
...ARBITRATION We review a trial court's determination regarding a motion for summary disposition de novo. Fane v. Detroit Library Comm., 465 Mich. 68, 74, 631 N.W.2d 678 (2001). This case presents questions of law that are also reviewed de novo. American Alternative Ins. Co., Inc. v. York, 47......