From Casetext: Smarter Legal Research

Davis v. Homestead Farms

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jul 23, 1984
359 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)

Opinion

Docket No. 65776.

Decided July 23, 1984.

Cummings, McClorey, Davis Acho, P.C. (by Bernard P. McClorey), for plaintiffs.

Berry, Puleo Noeske (by Orlando L. Blanco), for defendant.

Before: WAHLS, P.J., and R.M. MAHER and C.W. SIMON, JJ.

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


In this action to recover damages for personal injuries to Collene Parrott, the circuit court granted summary judgment for defendant Livonia School District on the basis of governmental immunity. This Court granted plaintiffs' interlocutory delayed application for leave to appeal.

In order to state a claim on which relief can be granted against a governmental entity, the plaintiff must plead facts in avoidance of governmental immunity. See, for example, Graves v Wayne County, 124 Mich. App. 36, 40; 333 N.W.2d 740 (1983). Plaintiffs' complaint alleged that Collene Parrott went on a field trip to Homestead Farms with her kindergarten class from the Livonia School District. At the farm, she was bitten on the left cheek by a horse. The complaint alleges that a proximate cause of Collene Parrott's injuries was the negligent failure of the school district's personnel to provide adequate supervision during the field trip.

In Bush v Oscoda Area Schools, 405 Mich. 716, 727-728; 275 N.W.2d 268 (1979), Justice LEVIN noted that less than a majority of the Court was willing to hold that operation of a public school was outside the scope of governmental immunity. Cases decided by this Court since Bush recognize that operation of a public school falls within the scope of governmental immunity. Deaner v Utica Community School Dist, 99 Mich. App. 103; 297 N.W.2d 625 (1980); Churilla v East Detroit School Dist, 105 Mich. App. 32; 306 N.W.2d 381 (1981); Smith v Mimnaugh, 105 Mich. App. 209; 306 N.W.2d 454 (1981); Everhart v Roseville Community Schools Bd of Ed, 108 Mich. App. 218; 310 N.W.2d 338 (1981); Gaston v Becker, 111 Mich. App. 692; 314 N.W.2d 728 (1981); Cobb v Fox, 113 Mich. App. 249; 317 N.W.2d 583 (1982); Bokano v Wayne-Westland Community Schools, 114 Mich. App. 79; 318 N.W.2d 613 (1982); Belmont v Forest Hills Public Schools, 114 Mich. App. 692; 319 N.W.2d 386 (1982); Weaver v Duff Norton Co, 115 Mich. App. 286; 320 N.W.2d 248 (1982); Lee v Highland Park School Dist, 118 Mich. App. 305; 324 N.W.2d 632 (1982); Regulski v Murphy, 119 Mich. App. 418; 326 N.W.2d 528 (1982); Grames v King, 123 Mich. App. 573; 332 N.W.2d 615 (1983); Boulet v Brunswick Corp, 126 Mich. App. 240; 336 N.W.2d 904 (1983). Examination of these cases, however, reveals some dispute on this Court as to precisely what activities fall within the scope of governmental immunity when carried out by a public school.

To determine whether a defense of governmental immunity is available to the school district here, we must examine the specific tortious activity alleged and determine whether it falls within the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Galli v Kirkeby, 398 Mich. 527, 535-536; 248 N.W.2d 149 (1976) (opinion of WILLIAMS, J.). We therefore must determine whether defendant school district, in taking kindergartners on a field trip to a farm, was exercising or discharging the governmental function of operating public schools. See Duncan v Detroit, 78 Mich. App. 632, 634; 261 N.W.2d 26 (1977), Antkiewicz v Motorists Mutual Ins Co, 91 Mich. App. 389, 395; 283 N.W.2d 749 (1979), vacated in part on other grounds 407 Mich. 936 (1979), Rouse v Michigan, 109 Mich. App. 21, 27-28; 311 N.W.2d 144 (1981), and Willis v Nienow, 113 Mich. App. 30, 37; 317 N.W.2d 273 (1982).

The following is required as part of the curriculum in public schools by MCL 380.1171; MSA 15.41171:

"Time shall be devoted in the public schools within this state to teaching the pupils kindness and justice to, and humane treatment and protection of, animals and birds, and the important part they fulfill in the economy of nature."

The school district was fulfilling this curriculum requirement by taking kindergartners on the field trip to the farm. The school district's activity in taking the children on the field trip therefore falls within the exercise or discharge of the governmental function of operating public schools.

Affirmed.


Summaries of

Davis v. Homestead Farms

Michigan Court of Appeals
Jul 23, 1984
359 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
Case details for

Davis v. Homestead Farms

Case Details

Full title:DAVIS v HOMESTEAD FARMS, INC

Court:Michigan Court of Appeals

Date published: Jul 23, 1984

Citations

359 N.W.2d 1 (Mich. Ct. App. 1984)
359 N.W.2d 1