Perry v. Kalamazoo State Hospital
| Decision Date | 27 December 1978 |
| Docket Number | Docket No. 59129,No. 15,D,15 |
| Citation | 404 Mich. 205,273 N.W.2d 421 |
| Parties | Leola PERRY, Administratrix of the Estate of James Herschel Perry, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. KALAMAZOO STATE HOSPITAL, Defendant-Appellee. Calendarec. Term 1977. 404 Mich. 205, 273 N.W.2d 421 |
| Court | Michigan Supreme Court |
Frank J. Kelley, Atty. Gen., Robert A. Derengoski, Sol. Gen., Jann Ryan Baugh, Norbert C. Jaworski, Asst. Attys. Gen., Lansing, for defendant-appellee.
Fieger, Golden & Cousens by Mark H. Cousens, Southfield, for plaintiff-appellant.
We are asked in this case to decide whether the operation of the Kalamazoo State Hospital constitutes the exercise or discharge of a governmental function for purposes of the statutory grant of immunity to the state from tort liability found in M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107). We hold that it does and affirm the trial court's grant of defendant's motion for summary judgment.
James Herschel Perry was a resident of Kalamazoo State Hospital on November 14, 1972. On that day, a hospital attendant, in the course of performing his routine duties, found it necessary to restrain Mr. Perry. In so doing, the attendant rendered Mr. Perry unconscious. The attendant then laid Mr. Perry on his back which caused the aspiration of his stomach contents and resulted in his death.
Plaintiff, administratrix of the estate of James Herschel Perry, filed a complaint in the Court of Claims alleging that defendant breached its duty to provide for the care, treatment and custody of Mr. Perry. 1
Defendant moved for summary judgment on the basis that it was immune from liability under the governmental immunity statute, M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107).
Following argument, the trial court granted defendant's motion for summary judgment. The Court of Appeals affirmed in a memorandum opinion.
We granted leave to appeal. 399 Mich. 894 (1977). We affirm.
The governmental immunity statute provides:
M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107).
The historical context in which this statute was enacted suggests that the Legislature's intent in adopting this act was to codify the existing common-law or judge-made immunity of the state. Thomas v. Dept. of State Highways, 398 Mich. 1, 10, 247 N.W.2d 530 (1976).
The phrase "governmental function" was a term of art at common law. It was used to both describe the nature and define the limits of the state's immunity from tort liability. By utilizing that same term of art in creating statutory immunity, the Legislature has directed the courts to look to the common law for guidance when faced with determining whether the state may invoke the protection of the statute in any given case.
A review of the case law of governmental immunity that existed prior to the legislative affirmation of the state's immunity provides guidance to this Court in two respects. First, the factual questions resolved in those decisions provide concrete examples of the specific activities contemplated by the Legislature when employing the term "governmental function." Second, that case law provides a definition of the term "governmental function." 2
Reference to the pre-statutory immunity cases reveals that this Court has held that the operation of a public hospital to promote the general public health is a governmental function. Martinson v. Alpena, 328 Mich. 595, 44 N.W.2d 148 (1950).
Furthermore, the operation of a public hospital comes clearly within the frequently cited "common good of all" definition of governmental function. 3
This leads to the conclusion, therefore, that the operation of a public hospital was a "governmental function" at common law in Michigan and consequently is a governmental function for purposes of the immunity statute. Defendant's operation as a state mental hospital is generally within the statute's immunity because its operation is in the "exercise or discharge of a governmental function." 4
The remaining question in our analysis is whether plaintiff has alleged tortious activity by defendant which falls within the scope of its immunity.
Plaintiff's complaint alleges that defendant negligently breached its duty to provide for the care, treatment and custody of its patient, Mr. Perry. The facts as pled and explained in oral argument alleged that this breach occurred when a hospital attendant improperly restrained Mr. Perry.
The care, treatment and custody of mental patients at a public hospital are activities intended to promote the general public health and are exercised for "the common good of all." The restraint and control of certain patients in a mental ward is required at certain times in the exercise of the care, treatment and custody of those patients. Consequently, the alleged tortious activity of defendant is within the governmental function of operating a public mental hospital. The defendant is immune from liability for its negligence, if any, in performing that function, by reason of M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107).
The trial court was correct in dismissing the action. GCR 1963, 117.2(1).
Affirmed. No costs, a public question being involved.
The opposite conclusion was reached relative to general hospitals in Parker v. Highland Park, Mich., 273 N.W.2d 413, also decided today. Accordingly, it may be gleaned that my rationale for retaining immunity in this case differs from my colleagues but is consistent with Parker.
Government plays a pervasive role in the area of mental health. This state's annual budget includes a substantial appropriation in this field. See, E. g., 1978 P.A. 407. Our Legislature has declared as public policy, "that services for the care, treatment, or rehabilitation of those who are seriously mentally handicapped shall always be fostered and supported". M.C.L. § 330.1116; M.S.A. § 14.800(116). See also Const.1963, art. 8, § 8.
Furthermore, to advance this public policy the Legislature has mandated the courts to provide for proper civil and criminal disposition of persons who have serious mental disease. See M.C.L. § 330.1400 Et seq.; M.S.A. § 14.800(400) Et seq.; M.C.L. § 330.2050; M.S.A. § 14.800(1050). Access to public mental hospitals is essential to effectively process probate and circuit court commitment proceedings. Clearly, the number of private mental hospitals available to the judiciary to deal with the substantial institutional needs of the public is inadequate.
The day-to-day care by an attendant, physician or other employee on the staff of a mental hospital represents a governmental function furthering the public need to segregate, treat and rehabilitate citizens suffering from mental disease who cannot otherwise care for themselves and who often are committed voluntarily or involuntarily through governmental action.
Accordingly, as public mental hospitals perform an essentially unique activity mandated by legislative action, immunity must be extended as a governmental function under the statute. The proper planning and carrying out of this function can effectively be accomplished only by the government. The function is essentially governmental.
It is recognized that an analytical demarcation between general and mental hospitals is far from perfect in this imperfect world. However, the rationale is an attempt to evolve a just application of the term governmental function within the confines of the present statute.
The Legislature has left the interpretation of governmental function to the courts. Of necessity, until this term is definitively refined, it is our responsibility to come to grips with the issue on a case-by-case basis.
The Court of Appeals decision is affirmed.
The issue here is whether the operation of a state mental hospital is a "governmental function", rendering the state immune from tort liability under M.C.L. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107). For the reasons stated by Justice...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.
...sovereign immunity.25 Subsequent decisions of this Court did not overrule Parker on this point. In Perry v. Kalamazoo State Hospital, 404 Mich. 205, 273 N.W.2d 421 (1978), which was decided the same day as Parker, Justice Ryan, joined by Justices Williams and Coleman, again expressed their ......
-
White v. Beasley
...413 (1978), holding that the operation of a general hospital by a city is not a governmental function, and Perry v. Kalamazoo State Hosp., 404 Mich. 205, 273 N.W.2d 421 (1978), holding that the operation of a mental hospital by the state was immune.The act provides:This act does not grant i......
-
Li v. Feldt
...the state's immunity"); Pinchette v. Manistique Schools, 403 Mich. 268, 278, n. 2, 269 N.W.2d 143 (1978); Perry v. Kalamazoo State Hosp., 404 Mich. 205, 210-211, 273 N.W.2d 421 (1978) ("historical context in which this statute was enacted suggests that the Legislature's intent in adopting t......
-
Hyde v. University of Michigan Bd. of Regents
...was Oakland Medical Center. A key issue at trial was whether the center was immune from tort liability under Perry v. Kalamazoo State Hospital, 404 Mich. 205, 273 N.W.2d 421 (1978), because the center treated psychiatric patients and was run by the Department of Mental On July 27, 1982, the......