From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Rifkin v. U of M Hosp

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 30, 1986
159 Mich. App. 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)

Opinion

Docket No. 86991.

Decided December 30, 1986. Leave to appeal applied for.

Rifkin Kingsley, P.C. (by David K. Whipple), for plaintiffs.

Plunkett, Cooney, Rutt, Watters, Stanczyk Pedersen, P.C. (by D.J. Watters and Christine D. Oldani), for defendant.

Before: M.J. KELLY, P.J., and D.E. HOLBROOK, JR., and T.M. GREEN, JJ.

Circuit judge, sitting on the Court of Appeals by assignment.


The issue presented in this case is whether defendant University of Michigan Hospital is immune from tort liability under the doctrine of governmental immunity announced in Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing), 420 Mich. 567; 363 N.W.2d 641 (1984). On August 7, 1985, the Michigan Court of Claims ruled in favor of immunity and granted summary disposition for defendant pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(8). Appellate oral argument was conducted in June of 1986. On October 3, 1986, the Michigan Supreme Court released its decision in Hyde v University of Michigan Bd of Regents, 426 Mich. 223; 393 N.W.2d 847 (1986), directly addressing the issue presented here. On the basis of that opinion, we reverse the lower court's order of summary disposition.

In Hyde v University of Michigan, a majority of justices of the Supreme Court decided the extent to which its opinion in Ross should be applied retroactively. 426 Mich. 241, 246. Since the instant case was pending in the trial court when the decision in Ross was issued, the definition of governmental immunity announced therein applies only if defendant had properly raised the defense of governmental immunity at that time. We have thoroughly reviewed the trial court record. Defendant in this case failed to assert the defense of governmental immunity until April 11, 1985, when it filed a motion for summary disposition based on the Ross decision. Thus, in accordance with the Supreme Court's opinion in Hyde, supra, the definition of governmental immunity announced in Ross does not apply to the defendant's activities in this case. Under former case law, defendant is not entitled to governmental immunity. Parker v Highland Park, 404 Mich. 183; 273 N.W.2d 413 (1978).

While the result reached in this case may initially seem a technical fluke, Justice CAVANAGH noted in Hyde v University of Michigan, that the Legislature has enacted 1986 PA 175, effective July 1, 1986, which specifically abrogates governmental immunity "with respect to the ownership or operation of a hospital or a county medical care facility." MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), as amended. Thus, the result here is consistent with case law prior to January 22, 1985, and statutory law after July 1, 1986, and accurately reflects the intent of the Legislature as now stated.

Reversed and remanded.


Summaries of

Rifkin v. U of M Hosp

Michigan Court of Appeals
Dec 30, 1986
159 Mich. App. 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)
Case details for

Rifkin v. U of M Hosp

Case Details

Full title:RIFKIN v UNIVERSITY OF MICHIGAN HOSPITAL

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Dec 30, 1986

Citations

159 Mich. App. 254 (Mich. Ct. App. 1986)
406 N.W.2d 202

Citing Cases

Totsky v. Henry Ford Hosp

Although the Michigan Legislature has recently created a public hospital exception to the immunity statute,…

Stein v. Family Planning

December 30, 1986 The Court of Appeals reversed the order granting summary disposition and remanded the case…