" Id., 492-493. In interpreting subsection 8, MCL 418.827(8); MSA 17.237(827)(8), which grants carriers immunity from liability arising out of safety inspection activities, was not deemed by this Court to be violative of public policy or discriminatory in violation of equal protection in view of the Legislature's determination to the contrary as found in Garrett v International Ins Co, 68 Mich. App. 418, 420-421; 242 N.W.2d 798 (1976). This Court ruled that the grant of immunity was based on the public policy of encouraging safety inspections.
Such an argument has been rebuffed by this Court on two occasions. Shwary v Cranetrol Corp, 88 Mich. App. 264, 267-269; 276 N.W.2d 882 (1979), Garrett v International Ins Co, 68 Mich. App. 418, 420-421; 242 N.W.2d 798 (1976). Contrary to plaintiffs' contention that the determinative equal protection reviewing standard is the "substantial-relation-to-the-object" test set forth in Manistee Bank Trust Co v McGowan, 394 Mich. 655, 669-670; 232 N.W.2d 636 (1975), these decisions held that the legislative enactments at issue were to be examined by the traditional "rational basis" approach, under which the classification is upheld where any state of facts can reasonably sustain it.
Manistee, supra, itself concerned the constitutionality of the state's 45-year-old guest passenger act. We conclude, as did another panel of this Court in Garrett v International Ins Co, 68 Mich. App. 418, 420-421; 242 N.W.2d 798 (1976), that the instant legislation is to be examined by the "rational basis" standard, under which a classification will be sustained "if any state of facts reasonably can be conceived that would sustain it * * *". Cruz v Chevrolet Grey Iron Div, General Motors Corp, 398 Mich. 117, 127; 247 N.W.2d 764 (1976), quoting Lindsley v Natural Carbonic Gas Co, 220 U.S. 61, 78-79; 31 S Ct 337; 55 L Ed 369 (1911). As Garrett, supra, at 421 noted:
The photograph in and of itself would not have allowed the trial court to determine the location and configuration of the dock. See Village of Manchester v Blaess, 258 Mich 652, 654-655; 242 NW2d 798 (1932) (a claimant's use of property must be proven with sufficient detail in order to establish an easement by prescription). Further, the evidence was unclear as to the scope of the Byers' use of the dock.