McPherson v. Fitzpatrick, Docket No. 19683

• Decision Date: 14 August 1975
• Docket Number: Docket No. 19683
• Citation: 63 Mich.App. 461,234 N.W.2d 566
• Parties: Edker McPHERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel C. FITZPATRICK et al., Defendants, and Detroit Police Department, Defendant-Appellee. 63 Mich.App. 461, 234 N.W.2d 566
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US

Page 566

234 N.W.2d 566

Edker McPHERSON, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Daniel C. FITZPATRICK et al., Defendants and Detroit Police Department, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 19683.

63 Mich.App. 461, 234 N.W.2d 566

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Aug. 14, 1975.

Released for Publication Nov. 5, 1975.

[63 MICHAPP 462] Law Offices of Albert Best by Walter S. Schwartz, Detroit, for plaintiff-appellant.

William P. Doran, Detroit, for defendant-appellee.

Before DANHOF, P.J., and R. B. BURNS and MAHER, JJ.

PER CURIAM.

On October 11, 1973, plaintiff instituted a lawsuit in the Wayne County Circuit Court against the Detroit Police Department and several of its officers and employees, some of whom were not known by name. The complaint alleged, Inter alia, false imprisonment, false arrest and assault and battery. On January 14, 1974, the trial court granted a motion for accelerated judgment, dismissing defendant police department from the suit on the grounds that the department was entitled to immunity under M.C.L.A. § 691.1401 Et seq.; M.S.A. § 3.996(101) Et seq. Plaintiff appeals as of right.

Plaintiff claims that the language of the statute does not extend to municipal departments. This argument is based upon a facial analysis of the following language from the title of 1964 P.A. 170 as amended by 1970 P.A. 155:

'An act to make uniform the liability of municipal corporations, political subdivisions, and the state, its agencies and departments, when engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function, for injuries to property and persons * * *.'

It is argued that the phrase 'its agencies and departments' refers only to its direct antecedent, 'the state', and not to municipal corporations and [63 MICHAPP 463] other political subdivisions. Plaintiff would apply 'the doctrine of the last antecedent' which provides that qualifying words and phrases refer only to the last antecedent where no contrary intention appears. Kizer v. Livingston County Board of Commissioners, 38 Mich.App. 239; 195 N.W.2d 884 (1972). Plaintiff also points to definitional portions of the statute, M.C.L.A. § 691.1401; M.S.A. § 3.996(101), which provide:

'Sec. 1. As used in this act:

'(a) 'Municipal corporation' means any city, village, township or charter township or any combination thereof, when acting jointly.

'(b) 'Political subdivision' means any municipal corporation, county, township, charter township, school district, port district, or metropolitan district, or any combination thereof, when acting jointly, and any district or authority formed by 1 or more political subdivisions.

'(c) 'State' means the state of Michigan and its agencies, departments, and commissions, and shall include every public university and college of the state, whether established as a constitutional corporation or otherwise.

'(d) 'Governmental agency' means the state, political subdivisions, and municipal corporations as herein defined.'

T...