MI PT Juris study materials
MI PT Juris study resources

MI PT Juris: Government Immunity and Tort Claims Against Public Entities

MI PT Juris · Work through your exam, one topic at a time.

All guide sections

Government Immunity and Tort Claims Against Public Entities

Governmental immunity questions reward precision about the specific statutory exception and the notice deadline.

The general rule

Under MCL 691.1407(1), a governmental agency is immune from tort liability when engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. The definition in MCL 691.1401(b) is broad - an activity expressly or impliedly mandated or authorized by constitution, statute, or other law. Exceptions are statutory and narrowly construed.

The main exceptions

  • Highway: MCL 691.1402 requires keeping the improved portion of the highway designed for vehicular travel in reasonable repair; written notice within 120 days under MCL 691.1404.
  • Sidewalks: MCL 691.1402a preserves municipal liability only where the discontinuity is at least two inches, the injury occurs on that portion, and notice is given.
  • Public buildings: MCL 691.1406 covers a dangerous or defective condition the agency knew or should have known of and failed to cure within a reasonable time.
  • Motor vehicles: MCL 691.1405 covers negligent operation of a government-owned vehicle by an authorized employee.
  • Sewer systems: MCL 691.1417.

Individual employees

MCL 691.1407(2) shields employees unless they were grossly negligent and acting within the scope of authority. Gross negligence means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate substantial lack of concern for whether injury results - a demanding standard ordinary negligence does not meet.

Worked example

A driver hits a large pothole on a city street in March, and the city has no record of it. The claim requires written notice within 120 days identifying the location and defect. Notice served in August fails even if the pothole was real and serious.

Traps

Treating the highway and sidewalk exceptions as interchangeable; missing the 120-day notice; assuming ordinary negligence suffices against an individual employee; recasting a discretionary policy decision as gross negligence.