Renny v. Dept. of Transp.

• Decision Date: 11 July 2007
• Docket Number: Docket No. 131086.
• Citation: 734 N.W.2d 518,478 Mich. 490
• Parties: Karen RENNY and Charles Renny, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellant.
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

734 N.W.2d 518

478 Mich. 490

Karen RENNY and Charles Renny, Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF TRANSPORTATION, Defendant-Appellant.

Docket No. 131086.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

July 11, 2007.

Robert Charles Davis, Macomb, for the plaintiffs.

Michael A. Cox, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and

Patrick F. Isom and Harold J. Martin, Assistant Attorneys General, Escanaba, for the defendant.

Plunkett & Cooney, P.C. (by Mary Massaron Ross and Hilary A. Dullinger), Detroit, for amici curiae Michigan Municipal League, Michigan Municipal League Liability and Property Pool, and the Michigan Townships Association.

YOUNG, J.

In this case we consider whether a "design defect" claim is cognizable under the public building exception to governmental immunity, MCL 691.1406. The plain language of the public building exception imposes a duty only to "repair and maintain" a public building. In the absence of any additional language addressing design defects, we hold that the public building exception to governmental immunity does not permit a cause of action premised upon an alleged design defect. We disavow any dicta to the contrary in our earlier cases and overrule any cases such as Sewell v. Southfield Pub Schools,¹ and Williamson v. Dep't of Mental Health,² that can be construed to stand for the proposition that design defects fall within the public building exception. However, because plaintiff's³ complaint alternatively alleged that defendant Michigan Department of Transportation (MDOT) failed to repair and maintain the public building, we remand to the Court of Claims to determine whether plaintiff's suit may proceed with respect to these allegations.⁴ Accordingly, we affirm the Court of Appeals reversal of summary disposition in favor of MDOT, reverse the Court of Appeals holding that design defects are actionable under the public building exception and remand the case to the Court of Claims for further proceedings consistent with this decision.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Karen Renny visited a rest area in Roscommon County, Michigan, in January 2000. She alleged that while leaving the rest area building, she slipped on a patch of snow and ice on the sidewalk in front of the doorway and suffered serious injuries to her right wrist. Plaintiff sued MDOT, alleging that her injuries resulted from a defective condition of the rest area building. According to plaintiff, "by [MDOT] designing, constructing, keeping and/or maintaining" the rest area in a defective condition, melted snow and ice accumulated on the sidewalks in front of the entranceway and created a hazardous, slippery surface.⁵ Plaintiff attributed the accumulated snow and ice, in part, to MDOT's failure to install and maintain gutters and downspouts around the roof of the building. Plaintiff maintained that gutters and downspouts would have safely channeled the snow and ice that melted off the roof away from the sidewalks. Moreover, plaintiff alleged that MDOT had actual or constructive notice of these defects for more than 90 days before the accident, but failed to remedy them. MDOT moved for summary disposition, which the Court of Claims granted on the basis of governmental immunity.

In a published per curiam decision, the Court of Appeals reversed the Court of Claims.⁶ The panel held that plaintiff's claim was cognizable as a design defect claim under the public building exception. It further concluded that plaintiff's injured wrist was directly attributable to a dangerous or defective condition of the building itself even though the dangerous condition of snow and ice existed outside the building.

This Court granted MDOT's application for leave to appeal.⁷

II. STANDARD OF REVIEW

This Court reviews de novo motions for summary disposition.⁸ Questions of statutory interpretation are questions of law that are also reviewed de novo by this Court.⁹ This Court approaches the task of statutory interpretation by seeking to give effect to the Legislature's intent as expressed in the statutory language.¹⁰ "When the language of a statute is unambiguous, the Legislature's intent is clear and judicial construction is neither necessary nor permitted."¹¹

III. ANALYSIS

This case pivots on the proper interpretation of the public building exception to governmental immunity. MCL 691.1406 states, in pertinent part, that

[g]overnmental agencies have the obligation to repair and maintain public buildings under their control when open for use by members of the public. Governmental agencies are liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from a dangerous or defective condition of a public building if the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the defect and, for a reasonable time after acquiring knowledge, failed to remedy the condition or to take action reasonably necessary to protect the public against the condition. [Emphasis added.]

This Court has held that in order for a plaintiff to avoid governmental immunity under the public building exception, the plaintiff must prove that (1) a governmental agency is involved, (2) the public building in question is open for use by members of the public, (3) a dangerous or defective condition of the public building itself exists, (4) the governmental agency had actual or constructive knowledge of the alleged defect, and (5) the governmental agency failed to remedy the alleged defective condition after a reasonable amount of time.¹² In this case, the parties dispute whether plaintiff has satisfied the third element. That is, whether plaintiff was injured by a dangerous or defective condition of the rest area building.

Plaintiff maintains that the dangerous or defective condition of the rest area building arose from a design defect, and that a design defect claim is cognizable under the public building exception.¹³ She rests her argument on certain language from Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools¹⁴ that we have reiterated in Reardon v. Dep't of Mental Health¹⁵ and other subsequent cases.¹⁶ In Bush, the plaintiff, the mother of an injured student, sued the student's school and school officials after a jug of wood alcohol exploded in a non-laboratory classroom temporarily used to hold science class. Concluding that the plaintiff stated a claim against the defendants under the public building exception, this Court opined that

[t]he defective building provision is structurally similar to the defective highway provisions. It states a duty "repair and maintain", and in providing a cause of action extends it to "a dangerous or defective condition of a building". We construe the defective building provision as we have the defective highway provision. Governmental agencies are subject to liability for a dangerous or defective condition of a public building without regard to whether it arises out of a failure to repair and maintain.

As in the highway cases, a building may be dangerous or defective because of improper design, faulty construction or the absence of safety devices.¹⁷

In Reardon, this Court quoted Bush approvingly to make the point that the public building exception applies only where an injury "is occasioned by a physical defect or dangerous condition of the building itself"¹⁸ rather than where an injury merely occurs on the premises. In its discussion of the governmental agency's duty under the public building exception, the Reardon Court opined that

[t]he first sentence [of the public building exception] imposes upon governmental agencies the duty to "repair and maintain public buildings under their control . . . ." In Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools, 405 Mich. 716, 275 N.W.2d 268 (1979), we held that this duty is not strictly limited to the repair or maintenance of public buildings. Instead, we held that "a building may be dangerous or defective because of improper design, faulty construction or the absence of safety devices." Id. at 730, 275 N.W.2d 268. We reiterate this proposition, as the holding in Bush is entirely consistent with today's conclusion that the injury must be occasioned by the dangerous or defective condition of the building itself. As long as the danger of injury is presented by a physical condition of the building, it little matters that the condition arose because of improper design, faulty construction, or absence of safety devices. However, while the public building exception is not strictly limited to failures of repair or maintenance, the Legislature's choice of those terms to define the governmental duty is indicative of its intention regarding the scope of the exception. The duty to repair and maintain a premises clearly relates to the physical condition of the premises.¹⁹

Citing Bush and Reardon, this Court has stated elsewhere that a defective design claim falls within the public building exception.²⁰ Plaintiff rests her design defect claim on this line of cases.

MDOT responds that this Court has never squarely held that a design defect is cognizable under the public building exception. According to MDOT, Reardon's discussion of Bush and design defect claims was obiter dictum. Reardon considered and rejected the notion that the public building exception extended to injuries that occur in a public building but were not occasioned by a physical condition of the building itself. It did not pass on the merits of a design defect claim.

Moreover, MDOT argues that Reardon mischaracterized Bush as holding that design defects fall within the public building exception, when Bush in fact only considered the intended use of the classroom and the lack of safety devices in its holding. Thus, MDOT argues, it was unnecessary for the Bush Court to opine on the propriety of a design defect claim and its statement on that question was dictum. Finally, MDOT points out, this Court more recently has openly questioned whether a design defect claim fits within the public building exception. In de Sanchez v. Dep't of Mental Health,²¹ we...