de Sanchez v. Michigan Dept. of Mental Health

• Decision Date: 08 July 1997
• Docket Number: Docket No. 101591,No. 7,7
• Citation: 565 N.W.2d 358,455 Mich. 83
• Parties: Francine Cullari de SANCHEZ & Steven Jason, Co-personal Representatives of the estate of Thomas A. Baltus, deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee. Calendar
• Court: Michigan Supreme Court

Page 358

565 N.W.2d 358

455 Mich. 83

Francine Cullari de SANCHEZ & Steven Jason, Co-personal Representatives of the estate of Thomas A. Baltus deceased, Plaintiffs-Appellants, v. MICHIGAN DEPARTMENT OF MENTAL HEALTH, Defendant-Appellee.

Docket No. 101591.

Calendar No. 7.

Supreme Court of Michigan.

Argued March 5, 1997.

Decided July 8, 1997.

[455 Mich. 84] Lopatin, Miller, Freedman, Bluestone, Herskovic, Heilmann & Domol by Richard E. Shaw, Southfield, for plaintiffs-appellants.

Frank J. Kelley, Attorney General, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, and Alan F. Hoffman, Assistant Attorney General, Lansing, for defendant-appellee.

OPINION

BOYLE, Justice.

We granted leave in this case to determine whether a defense of proper supervision may bar a true building defect claim under the public building exception to governmental immunity. Finding it does not, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals and remand this case to the trial court for further proceedings consistent with this opinion. ¹

I

On March 11, 1983, plaintiffs' decedent was involuntarily admitted to Ypsilanti Regional Psychiatric Hospital. There, decedent was diagnosed with reactive depression, thought disorders, and suicidal preoccupation. The decedent was immediately placed on one-to-one suicidal precautions. Six days later, he was taken off one-to-one watch and was placed on general suicidal precautions. ² The following day, while still on general precautions, the decedent hanged himself by attaching a cloth belt to an overhead dividing bar inside a toilet stall in the facility's restroom.

For the past decade, this case has weaved its way through the judicial system. Separate lawsuits were originally filed in the Court of Claims against the Department of Mental Health and in the Washtenaw Circuit Court against Dr. Genoves-Andrews. ³ On September 6, 1984, the Department of Mental Health was granted summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1), now MCR 2.116(C)(8). ⁴ Dr. Genoves-Andrews' was granted summary judgment pursuant to GCR 1963, 117.2(1) on June 29, 1984. ⁵ On appeal, the grant of summary judgment in favor of Dr. Genoves-Andrews was reversed. ⁶ In addition, the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Mental Health on the defective public building claim was also reversed. ⁷ On all other counts, summary judgment was affirmed.

An application for leave to appeal to this Court was filed by defendants. In lieu of granting leave, we remanded the case to the Court of Appeals for reconsideration in light of Canon v. Thumudo, 430 Mich. 326, 422 N.W.2d 688 (1988), Reardon v. Dep't of Mental Health, 430 Mich. 398, 424 N.W.2d 248 (1988), and Smith v. Dept. of Public Health, 428 Mich. 540, 410 N.W.2d 749 (1987). ⁸ On remand, the Court of Appeals modified its earlier opinion regarding the grant of summary judgment in favor of the Department of Mental Health. Specifically, the Court upheld the grant of summary judgment on that portion of plaintiffs' claim that related to the defendant's failure to design the restroom in a manner that would allow proper observation and supervision of patients. ⁹ The Court found, however, that plaintiffs' allegation that the restroom design was dangerous or defective in light of the suicidal tendencies of its users was sufficient to withstand summary judgment. In all other respects, the Court upheld its previous ruling.

On remand from the Court of Appeals, the defendants moved for summary disposition pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10). That motion was denied on August 6, 1992. On defendants' motion for reconsideration, the trial court reversed itself and granted summary disposition for both defendants. After remand, the Court of Appeals affirmed, ¹⁰ and we granted leave to appeal. ¹¹ Plaintiffs do not appeal the order granting Dr. Genoves-Andrews summary disposition. Accordingly, the only issue before this Court is whether defendant Department of Mental Health was properly granted summary disposition where it was concluded that proper supervision would have offset shortcomings in the configuration of the room.

II

The issue before us is not whether a defect in the building actually existed or whether, if a defect did exist, the defendant's actions were the legal or factual cause of the decedent's death. Plaintiffs contend that a defect did exist and the Court of Appeals did not revisit this question. Instead, the sole issue on appeal is whether the defense of proper supervision bars a true building defect claim. Defendant concedes that, as the common restroom for the ward, the restroom was to be used by suicidal patients. Defendant contends, however, that because the restroom was never assigned to be suicide proof, and reasonable supervision could have prevented the suicide, there was no building defect. ¹² The argument is as follows: where a known suicidal patient in a psychiatric hospital uses a room that was not specifically assigned to hold actively suicidal patients without supervision, would proper supervision have prevented the suicide? If the answer is yes, the public building exception does not apply and the government entity is shielded from liability under the state immunity statute, even if a defect did exist. ¹³ The Court of Appeals concluded that "[b]ecause the undisputed evidence indicates that proper supervision would have offset any shortcomings in the configuration of the room, summary disposition was properly granted on the building design defect claim." ¹⁴ In our view, this holding blurs the distinction between those claims that allege mere negligence and those that allege a true building defect. Accordingly, we reverse the decision of the Court of Appeals.

III

A motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10) examines the factual basis for a claim and may be granted only where there are no genuine issues of material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. ¹⁵ In reviewing a motion brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(10), the court may properly consider supporting affidavits or other documentary evidence outside the pleadings, drawing all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant's favor. Skinner v. Square D Co., 445 Mich. 153, 161-162, 516 N.W.2d 475 (1994).

IV

The governmental immunity statute affords significant immunity from tort liability arising from activities in which the governmental agency was engaged in the performance of a governmental function. M.C.L. § 691.1407(1); M.S.A. § 3.996(107)(1). ¹⁶ Five narrowly drawn exceptions exist to limit this broad grant of immunity, including the public building exception. ¹⁷ Under the public building exception, governmental agencies have a duty to repair and maintain public buildings under their control when those buildings are open for use by the public. ¹⁸ Liability arises when injuries are caused by a dangerous or defective condition in the building itself. ¹⁹ Whether the physical condition of a given room is dangerous or defective must be determined in light of the uses or activities for which the room was specifically assigned. Hickey v. Zezulka, 439 Mich. 408, 422, 487 N.W.2d 106 (1992). ²⁰

V

This Court has held that as long as a physical defect in the building itself coincided to cause the injury, the government entity may be liable under the public building exception even if negligent supervision was involved. ²¹ In Bush v. Oscoda Area Schools, 405 Mich. 716, 275 N.W.2d 268 (1979), the majority concluded that the plaintiff stated a claim under the public building exception, despite the fact that allegations of negligent supervision also were made. There, the plaintiff's child sustained injuries when an explosion rocked a public school classroom. In her suit for damages, the plaintiff alleged that the injuries arose out of the defendant's failure to supervise, coupled with a lack of safety equipment in the classroom. ²² The majority held that the plaintiff had stated a claim under the public building exception to the governmental immunity statute.

Likewise, in Williamson v. Dep't of Mental Health, 176 Mich.App. 752, 758, 440 N.W.2d 97 (1989), the Court of Appeals concluded that a defect in the defendant's building existed, despite the fact that improper supervision was also a contributing cause of the decedent's death. The Court opined that

[w]hile it is true that cases which involve nothing more than improper or inadequate supervision do not make out a case under the building exception to governmental immunity, we disagree with defendant's contention that this case is one involving only improper supervision. We believe that the facts of this case involve a building defect as well. [Id.]

The assertion that "proper supervision would have offset any shortcomings in the configuration of the room" was first pronounced in Reardon, supra at 417, 424 N.W.2d 248. In Reardon, a nursing student sought damages for a sexual assault she suffered while occupying a room in the defendant's dormitory. The crux of plaintiff's complaint was that her dormitory room was unsafe because numerous master keys were in circulation. In a companion case, Schafer v. Ethridge, a mentally retarded resident of a state facility was sexually assaulted and impregnated. The substance of this complaint was that the layout of the facility created a dangerous or defective condition in the building because it hindered staff supervision. Finding that neither case involved an injury caused by a condition of the building as used for its intended purpose, the majority concluded that the public building exception did not apply. Id. at 400, 424 N.W.2d 248.

In Reardon and Schafer, sexual assaults on a student and patient were found not to state a claim in avoidance of governmental immunity because the building, which was being used for its intended purpose, was not defective. ^{23 23} Unlike Bush and Williamson, in which defects in the buildings were allegedly contributing causes of the injuries, the consolidated cases of Reardon...