Michigan’s public employees are protected by government immunity for bad decisions

I got Government Immunity - What do you got

Sorry…Not Sorry

Michigan Governmental Immunity Laws

Michigan’s governmental immunity laws provide legal protection to government agencies and their employees in negligence lawsuits. Here are the key points:

Governmental Agency Immunity:

A governmental agency is immune from tort liability when engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.
This immunity does not modify or restrict the state’s immunity from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965.
The state’s immunity from tort liability is affirmed.

Officer and Employee Immunity:

Officers, employees, and volunteers acting on behalf of a governmental agency are immune from tort liability for injuries or property damage caused during the course of employment or service.

Conditions for immunity:

Acting within the scope of authority.
The governmental agency is engaged in a governmental function.
Conduct does not amount to gross negligence that proximately causes injury or damage.
Intentional torts are not covered by this immunity.

Specific Immunities:

Judges, legislators, and the highest appointive executive officials are immune from tort liability when acting within their respective authorities.
Guardians ad litem are immune when acting within their authority.

Why not you?

Because you don’t work for the government.

Watch the abuse in the near future

Relevant Michigan Compiled Laws (MCL) Links

MCL Section 691.1407: Detailed provisions on governmental immunity.
MCL Section 691.1418: Factual disputes related to injuries and serious impairment of body function.

News Articles on Michigan Immunity Laws

FOX 17: What is Government Immunity?
Provides an overview of government immunity in Michigan.
FOX 2 Detroit: Waiting for Justice – Michigan’s Public Employees and Government Immunity
Discusses how government immunity protects public employees unless gross negligence is proven as the proximate cause of injury or damage.

FAQs

Is Michigan a qualified immunity state?

In Michigan, qualified immunity is created by statute. Its application, however, is limited to state court civil actions alleging tortious behavior causing injury or damages, such as cases which allege assault, battery (excessive force claims), and injuries from vehicular accidents.

What are the exceptions to governmental immunity in Michigan?

Since 1986, most of the governmental immunity cases have been focused on the major exceptions to governmental immunity—failure to keep highways in reasonable repair, the negligent operation of government-owned motor vehicles, and dangerous or defective conditions in public buildings.

Who qualifies for immunity?

Qualified immunity only applies to suits against government officials as individuals, not suits against the government for damages caused by the officials’ actions. Although qualified immunity frequently appears in cases involving police officers, it also applies to most other executive branch officials.

What states are getting rid of qualified immunity?

In addition, cities and states can create their own causes of action to hold government officials accountable and ban qualified immunity as a potential defense. Today, four states—Colorado, Montana, Nevada, and New Mexico—have eliminated qualified immunity for state constitutional lawsuits against police officers.

Here’s the Law
MCL Section 691.1407

691.1407 Immunity from tort liability; intentional torts; immunity of judge, legislator, official, and guardian ad litem; immunity of governmental agency under MISS DIG underground facility damage prevention and safety act; definitions.

Sec. 7.

(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.

(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, and without regard to the discretionary or ministerial nature of the conduct in question, each officer and employee of a governmental agency, each volunteer acting on behalf of a governmental agency, and each member of a board, council, commission, or statutorily created task force of a governmental agency is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the officer, employee, or member while in the course of employment or service or caused by the volunteer while acting on behalf of a governmental agency if all of the following are met:

(a) The officer, employee, member, or volunteer is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority.

(b) The governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.

(c) The officer’s, employee’s, member’s, or volunteer’s conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.

(3) Subsection (2) does not alter the law of intentional torts as it existed before July 7, 1986.

(4) This act does not grant immunity to a governmental agency or an employee or agent of a governmental agency with respect to providing medical care or treatment to a patient, except medical care or treatment provided to a patient in a hospital owned or operated by the department of community health or a hospital owned or operated by the department of corrections and except care or treatment provided by an uncompensated search and rescue operation medical assistant or tactical operation medical assistant.

(5) A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her judicial, legislative, or executive authority.

(6) A guardian ad litem is immune from civil liability for an injury to a person or damage to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority as guardian ad litem. This subsection applies to actions filed before, on, or after May 1, 1996.

(7) The immunity provided by this act does not apply to liability of a governmental agency under the MISS DIG underground facility damage prevention and safety act.

(8) As used in this section:

(a) “Gross negligence” means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.

(b) “Search and rescue operation” means an action by a governmental agency to search for, rescue, or recover victims of a natural or manmade disaster, accident, or emergency on land or water.

(c) “Search and rescue operation medical assistant” means an individual licensed to practice 1 or more of the occupations listed in subdivision (e), acting within the scope of the license, and assisting a governmental agency in a search and rescue operation.

(d) “Tactical operation” means a coordinated, planned action by a special operations, weapons, or response team of a law enforcement agency that is 1 of the following:

(i) Taken to deal with imminent violence, a riot, an act of terrorism, or a similar civic emergency.

(ii) The entry into a building, area, watercraft, aircraft, land vehicle, or body of water to seize evidence, or to arrest an individual for a felony, under the authority of a warrant issued by a court.

(iii) Training for the team.

(e) “Tactical operation medical assistant” means an individual licensed to practice 1 or more of the following, acting within the scope of the license, and assisting law enforcement officers while they are engaged in a tactical operation:

(i) Medicine, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or as a registered professional nurse, under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.

(ii) As an emergency medical technician, emergency medical technician specialist, or paramedic under part 209 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20901 to 333.20979.

Attorney Michael Komorn

State / Federal Legal Defense

With extensive experience in criminal legal defense since 1993 from pre-arrest, District, Circuit, Appeals, Supreme and the Federal court systems.

KOMORN LAW (248) 357-2550

Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Prisoner in Possession

Prisoner in Possession of a Controlled SubstanceCase Summary In People v Tadgerson, the Michigan Supreme Court addressed a critical question: does the crime of a prisoner possessing a controlled substance under MCL 800.281(4) require proof of intent, or is it a...

Michigan Supreme Court and Court of Appeals Cases – Murder

Case Summary In People v Jones, the Michigan Court of Appeals addressed whether a single act of abuse can support convictions for both first‑degree child abuse and felony murder. The defendant argued that using the same conduct to support both charges violated...

Tap Here to Call Us

Other Articles

The “Automobile Exception” in Michigan law

The "automobile exception" in Michigan law allows police to search a vehicle without a warrant if they have probable cause to believe it contains evidence of a crime.This exception is grounded in the idea that vehicles are inherently mobile, meaning evidence could be...

The search being challenged was triggered by the odor of cannabis

The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins III (No. 367209) revolves around a legal challenge regarding the search of a vehicle without a warrant.Police conducted a warrantless search under the "automobile exception."The case People of Michigan v. Freddie Wilkins...

Carrying a Concealed Weapon in Michigan

Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization is a crime.Carrying a concealed weapon (CCW) in Michigan without proper authorization can lead to serious criminal charges. Michigan law has strict regulations regarding firearms, and violating...

MI Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records Dispute

Michigan Supreme Court Declines to Intervene in Public Records DisputeTeachers Union and School District at Odds Over Data AccessThe Michigan Supreme Court recently declined to hear a case regarding whether public school teachers' class materials are subject to the...