Picard v. Greisinger
| Decision Date | 20 December 1965 |
| Docket Number | 25,Nos. 24,No. 1,s. 24,1 |
| Citation | 138 N.W.2d 508,2 Mich.App. 96 |
| Parties | Mel PICARD, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dale GREISINGER, Defendant, and Taylor Township School District, a school district of the State of Michigan, and Taylor Township Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees. Donald PICARD, a minor, by his next friend, Mel Picard, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. Dale GREISINGER, Defendant, and Taylor Township School District, a school district of the State of Michigan, and Taylor Township Board of Education, Defendants-Appellees. Cal |
| Court | Court of Appeal of Michigan — District of US |
Sugar & Schwartz, Detroit, for appellant.
Harry F. Velllmure and Victor T. Mitea, Allen Park, for appellees.
Before LESINSKI, C. J., and QUINN and WATTS, JJ.
Plaintiffs filed their actions to recover for injuries allegedly sustained by the minor plaintiff while watching a gym class at the school he attended. Defendant Greisinger was a teacher at that school and part of his duties was to conduct, instruct and supervise gym classes. The school was in defendant school district and was governed by defendant board of education. Plaintiffs alleged the minor was injured as the result of being struck in the head by a basketball thrown at him intentionally and forcibly by Greisinger at a time when the latter knew, or should have known, the minor was unprepared prepared to catch it. Plaintiffs further alleged that Greisinger refused to allow the minor to seek medical treatment and required him to remain in the gym class in spite of the injuries. Plaintiffs pleaded that Greisinger's negligence was imputed to the district and board; that they retained Greisinger in employment even though they knew, or should have known, he was of violent disposition and that he had and was likely to cause harm to students; and that the district and board were negligent in failing to provide adequate supervision for students. In their answers, the district and board pleaded affirmatively the defense of governmental immunity. By replies, plaintiffs pleaded this defense did not preclude the district and board from liability for their own tortious acts or those of their agents, servants and employees. The trial court granted the motion of the district and board for summary judgment on the authority of Sayers v. School District No. 1 etc. (1962), 366 Mich. 217, 114 N.W.2d 191. Plaintiffs appeal from this action by the trial court.
Plaintiffs raise two questions on this appeal, namely:
1. Are school districts and boards of education immune from liability for injuries sustained as a result of the tortious conduct of their employees acting within the course and scope of their employment?
2. Are school districts and boards of education immune from liability for injuries sustained as a result of their own tortious conduct?
The facts pertinent to decision have been recited from plaintiffs' pleadings earlier in this opinion.
...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Ross v. Consumers Power Co.
...decision of this Court and was distinguished twice in the Court of Appeals on the basis of Sayer, supra. See Picard v. Greisinger, 2 Mich.App. 96, 98-99, 138 N.W.2d 508 (1965); Williams v. Primary School Dist. # 3, Green Twp., 3 Mich.App. 468, 473, 142 N.W.2d 894 (1966).16 1943 P.A. 237, Se......
-
Pittman v. City of Taylor
...Decisions since that time have been consistent at least to the point that a school district is a state agency. In Picard v. Greisinger, 2 Mich.App. 96, 138 N.W.2d 508 (1965), the trial court granted summary judgment in favor of two defendants--a school district and a township board of educa......
-
Lovitt v. Concord School Dist.
...M.C.L.A. § 691.1407; M.S.A. § 3.996(107). Sayers v. School District No. 1, 366 Mich. 217, 114 N.W.2d 191 (1962), Picard v. Greisinger, 2 Mich.App. 96, 138 N.W.2d 508 (1965), Williams v. Primary School District No. 3, 3 Mich.App. 468, 142 N.W.2d 894 (1966), McNees v. Scholley, 46 Mich.App. 7......
-
Cody v. Southfield-Lathrup School Dist.
...State's immunity. We have also held that school districts are State agencies for the purpose of tort liability. Picard v. Greisinger (1965), 2 Mich.App. 96, 138 N.W.2d 508; Williams v. Primary School District #3, Green Township (1966), 3 Mich.App. 468, 142 N.W.2d 894; Meredith v. City of Me......