Henkey v. City of Grand Rapids
| Decision Date | 25 September 1990 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 123654 |
| Citation | 185 Mich.App. 56,460 N.W.2d 271 |
| Parties | Robert Edward HENKEY, Jr., Plaintiff-Appellant, v. CITY OF GRAND RAPIDS, Defendant-Appellee. 185 Mich.App. 56, 460 N.W.2d 271 |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
[185 MICHAPP 56] Jeffrey L. Hampel, Wyoming, for plaintiff-appellant.
[185 MICHAPP 57] Lynne E. Pope, Asst. City Atty., Grand Rapids, for defendant-appellee.
Before MURPHY, P.J., and HOLBROOK and MAHER, JJ.
Plaintiff appeals as of right from the order of the Kent Circuit Court which granted summary disposition to defendant on the basis of governmental immunity. The court ruled that the public building exception did not apply to injuries suffered by plaintiff when he slipped on some snow and ice and fell on the sidewalk immediately adjacent to the entryway of defendant's public building. We reverse.
As we read Reardon v. Dep't of Mental Health, 430 Mich. 398, 413-414, 424 N.W.2d 248 (1988)--the Supreme Court's latest pronouncement on the public building exception, M.C.L. Sec. 691.1406, MSA 3.996(106)--the exception is not limited to the actual physical structure of the building, but applies to areas immediately adjacent to the building as well. To the extent that Yarrick v. Village of Kent City, 180 Mich.App. 410, 447 N.W.2d 803 (1989), holds contra, we disagree. We also believe the building exception applies to dangerous conditions arising from the accumulation of foreign substances on the floors of public buildings. Wade v. Dep't of Corrections, 182 Mich.App. 519, 453 N.W.2d 683 (1990). Furthermore, we find no good reason for distinguishing between the natural accumulations of substances (such as the snow and ice here) and those caused by persons (such as the oil and grease in Wade ) where the dangers of each are equally well known to the government agency. The pertinent inquiry should not concern the genesis of the danger, but whether the government agency had actual or constructive knowledge that [185 MICHAPP 58] a danger existed and failed to act to protect the public. Williamson v. Dep't of Mental Health, 176 Mich.App. 752, 757, 440 N.W.2d 97 (1989), lv. den. 434 Mich. 862 (1990). The trial court erred in holding that a sidewalk adjacent to a public building does not fall within the public building exception and that the natural accumulation of ice and snow does not constitute a dangerous condition of the building. Defendant should not have...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Wade v. Department of Corrections
...or defective condition of the building itself, hence we do not address that issue in this opinion.12 See Henkey v. Grand Rapids, 185 Mich.App. 56, 57, 460 N.W.2d 271 (1990) ("The pertinent inquiry should not concern the genesis of the danger," but rather the knowledge of the danger by the g......
-
Horace v. City of Pontiac
...an abandonment of the conclusion that the building exception could apply to immediately adjacent premises. In Henkey v. Grand Rapids, 185 Mich.App. 56, 57, 460 N.W.2d 271 (1990) (see n. 3), the plaintiff slipped and fell on some snow and ice on a sidewalk immediately adjacent to the entrywa......
-
Renny v. Transportation Dep't
...not within the public building exception."47 The Court explained that its preemptory reversal of the Court of Appeals decision in Henkey v. Grand Rapids,48 could be understood as standing for the proposition that a fall on snow and ice is not within the exception because it is a transitory ......
-
Richardson v. Warren Consol. School Dist.
...& Firemen of Lincoln Park v. Lincoln Park, 6 Mich.App. 372, 375, 149 N.W.2d 206 (1967).2 Plaintiff cited Henkey v. Grand Rapids, 185 Mich.App. 56, 460 N.W.2d 271 (1990), where this Court allowed a claim based on a fall on a sidewalk "immediately adjacent to the entryway" of a public buildin......