Hall v. Detroit Bd. of Educ.
| Decision Date | 11 February 1991 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 119536 |
| Citation | 186 Mich.App. 469,65 Ed. Law Rep. 522,465 N.W.2d 12 |
| Parties | Brenda HALL, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. DETROIT BOARD OF EDUCATION, and Allan Hall, Jointly and Severally, Defendants-Appellees. 186 Mich.App. 469, 465 N.W.2d 12, 65 Ed. Law Rep. 522 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[186 MICHAPP 470] Kelman, Loria, Downing, Schneider & Simpson by Alan B. Posner, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.
Sharon-Lee Edwards, Detroit, for defendants-appellees.
Before DANHOF, C.J., and CYNAR and BRENNAN, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right the order granting summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (10) in favor of defendants on the basis of governmental immunity. Plaintiff filed suit after she allegedly slipped and fell on ice while walking from the Harding school grounds to an immediately adjacent sidewalk. We affirm.
Plaintiff first argues that the trial court erred in holding that the public building exception to governmental immunity, M.C.L. Sec. 691.1406; M.S.A. Sec. 3.996(106), does not apply where a dangerous condition (ice) exists on school grounds adjacent to a public school building.
The broad construction of the public building exception urged by plaintiff does not comport with Reardon v. Dep't of Mental Health, 430 Mich. 398, 424 N.W.2d 248 (1988). The scope of the exception is now narrowly drawn. The duty imposed by the public building exception relates to dangers actually presented by the building itself. Wing v. Detroit, 178 Mich.App. 628, 631, 444 N.W.2d 539 (1989); Dew v. Livonia, 180 Mich.App. 676, 679, 447 N.W.2d 764 (1989); Yarrick v. Village of Kent City, 180 Mich.App. 410, 414, 447 N.W.2d 803 (1989). Accordingly, the public building exception does not [186 MICHAPP 471] apply here, where plaintiff was injured when she allegedly fell on school property adjacent to the public school building. Therefore, the trial court properly granted defendants summary disposition on this issue on the basis of governmental immunity.
Plaintiff states that her next issue is whether a school custodian, defendant Allan Hall, who performs ice and snow maintenance pursuant to a policy set by his supervisor is performing a ministerial function for which he is not governmentally immune. However, the more relevant question is whether defendant Hall owed a duty to plaintiff to remove the ice and snow. The trial court ruled he did not.
We agree with the trial court's findings. The natural accumulation doctrine provides that neither a municipality nor a landowner has a duty to a licensee to remove the natural accumulation of ice and snow from any location. Zielinski v. Szokola, 167 Mich.App. 611, 615, 423 N.W.2d 289 (1988), lv. den. 432 Mich. 859 (1989). This doctrine is subject to two exceptions. The first exception provides that liability to a licensee may attach where the...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. Department of Corrections
...668, 444 N.W.2d 533 (1989), Eberhard v. St. Johns Public Schools, 189 Mich.App. 466, 473 N.W.2d 745 (1991), Hall v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 186 Mich.App. 469, 465 N.W.2d 12 (1990), and Hemphill v. Michigan, 173 Mich.App. 335, 433 N.W.2d 826 The exception has been held applicable where the claim......
-
Horace v. City of Pontiac
...The Court of Appeals held that the exception applied to areas immediately adjacent to a building. In Hall v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 186 Mich.App. 469, 471, 465 N.W.2d 12 (1990), the plaintiff slipped and fell on ice while walking from the school grounds to an immediately adjacent sidewalk and ......
-
Altairi v. Alhaj, Docket No. 203221.
...applied the natural accumulation doctrine to insulate the abutting property owner from liability. In Hall v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 186 Mich.App. 469, 471, 465 N.W.2d 12 (1990), this Court found that the natural accumulation doctrine barred a plaintiff's recovery for injuries sustained when sh......
-
Steele v. Department of Corrections
...Area Schools, 405 Mich. 716, 731-732, 275 N.W.2d 268 (1979). The scope of the exception is narrowly drawn. Hall v. Detroit Bd. of Ed., 186 Mich.App. 469, 470, 465 N.W.2d 12 (1990). A five-part test determines whether the public building exception governs a particular case. A plaintiff must ......