Ransburg v. Wayne County

• Decision Date: 29 August 1988
• Docket Number: No. 96205,96205
• Citation: Ransburg v. Wayne County, 170 Mich.App. 358, 427 N.W.2d 906 (Mich. App. 1988)
• Parties: Paul RANSBURG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee. 170 Mich.App. 358, 427 N.W.2d 906
• Court: Court of Appeal of Michigan

Page 906

427 N.W.2d 906

Paul RANSBURG, Plaintiff-Appellant, v. WAYNE COUNTY, Defendant-Appellee.

No. 96205.

170 Mich.App. 358, 427 N.W.2d 906

Court of Appeals of Michigan.

Submitted March 2, 1988.

Decided May 4, 1988.

Released for Publication Aug. 29, 1988.

[170 MICHAPP 359] Barry F. LaKritz, Farmington Hills, for plaintiff-appellant.

Samuel A. Turner, Corp. Counsel, and James W. Quigly, Asst. Corp. Counsel, for defendant-appellee.

Before HOOD, P.J., and GILLIS and BREIGHNER, ^* JJ.

PER CURIAM.

Plaintiff appeals as of right from an order of summary disposition in favor of defendant. We affirm.

Plaintiff brought this action in Wayne Circuit Court to recover for injuries allegedly sustained when he slipped and fell on stairs in the "Old County Building" owned and maintained by the defendant. At his deposition, plaintiff testified that the defect which caused him to fall was dust on the stairs. He testified that he had discovered the dust when he went back to investigate the stairs after he reported the fall. The trial court granted defendant's motion for summary disposition, finding that the expected testimony could not establish a defect under the public building exception to governmental immunity as a matter of law.

Governmental agencies engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function are granted broad immunity from tort liability. M.C.L. Sec. 691.1407; M.S.A. Sec. 3.996(107). Under the "public building" exception to governmental immunity, the agency may be liable for injury resulting from a dangerous or defective condition of a "public building." M.C.L. Sec. 691.1406; M.S.A. Sec. 3.996(106); Tilford v. Wayne Co. General Hospital, 403 Mich. 293, 269 N.W.2d 153 (1978).

The elements of proof under this exception are: (1) a defect; (2) actual or constructive knowledge of [170 MICHAPP 360] the defect; and (3) failure to act on the part of the responsible agency. M.C.L. Sec. 691.1406; M.S.A. Sec. 3.996(106), Mosqueda v. Macomb Co. Youth Home, 132 Mich.App. 462, 469-470, 349 N.W.2d 185 (1984).

The trial court properly granted summary disposition because there was no issue of material fact as to the existence of a defect under MCR 2.116(C)(10). It is true, as plaintiff argues, that a trial court must be careful in deciding a motion under this court rule to avoid making findings of fact and to be liberal in finding that issues remain. Jubenville v. West End Cartage, Inc., 163 Mich.App. 199, 203, 413 N.W.2d 705 (1987). However, plaintiff could not rest upon the mere allegations of his pleading but had to "set forth specific facts showing that there is a genuine issue for trial." MCR 2.116(G)(4), Jubenville, supra. Plaintiff's failure to come forward with facts supporting his claim of a defect leave his allegations as sheer speculation and conjecture and therefore ripe for summary disposition. McCune v. Meijer, Inc, 156 Mich.App. 561, 563, 402 N.W.2d 6 (1986).

Plaintiff further argues that it was error to grant summary disposition before discovery...