 |
 |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|
|
|
|
Wilson v. City Of Detroit1/30/2001
UNPUBLISHED
Plaintiff appeals as of right from a trial court order granting defendant's motion for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8). We affirm.
Plaintiff alleged that defendant's employee sexually harassed her when she boarded a City of Detroit bus. In Count I of her complaint, plaintiff alleged that defendant was negligent in its hiring and training of employees, and its failure to warn plaintiff of the risk of harm. Count II of the complaint alleged that defendant discriminated against her on the basis of her sex in violation of the Civil Rights Act, MCL 37.2101 et seq.; MSA 3.548(101) et seq.
In lieu of filing an answer, defendant moved for summary disposition under MCR 2.116(C)(7) and (8). Defendant asserted that the governmental tort immunity act, MCL 691.1401 et seq.; MSA 3.996(101) et seq., barred plaintiff's claim, and that plaintiff failed to allege facts to support her conclusion that she was denied access to public services and accommodation under the Civil Rights Act. The trial court agreed and granted defendant's motion.
This Court reviews de novo a grant of summary disposition. Lytle v Malady (On Rehearing), 458 Mich 153, 177; 579 NW2d 906 (1998). When the motion is brought pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7), we review the pleadings, together with all the documentary evidence, in the light most favorable to the plaintiff to determine whether the defendant established that it was entitled to governmental immunity. Wade v Dep't of Corrections, 439 Mich 158, 162-163; 483 NW2d 26 (1992). Plaintiff argues that the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity applied to her case. We disagree.
Although governmental agencies are generally immune from tort liability pursuant to MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107), such immunity does not extend to injuries that arise out of the negligent operation of a motor vehicle:
Governmental agencies shall be liable for bodily injury and property damage resulting from the negligent operation by any officer, agent, or employee of the governmental agency, of a motor vehicle of which the governmental agency is owner . . . . [MCL 691.1405; MSA 3.996(105).]
The purpose underlying the motor vehicle exception to governmental immunity is to ensure that injured persons have redress against the owner of the vehicle - the state. Haberl v Rose, 225 Mich App 254, 258; 570 NW2d 664 (1997); Trommater v Michigan, 112 Mich App 459, 467; 316 NW2d 459 (1982).
The grant of governmental immunity contained in MCL 691.1407(1); MSA 3.996(107)(1) is broad, whereas the exceptions to governmental immunity are narrow. Nawrocki v Macomb Co Rd Comm, 463 Mich 143, 158; 615 NW2d 702 (2000).
We must decide whether plaintiff's alleged injuries resulted from the negligent operation of a motor vehicle. We conclude that they did not. The gravamen of the complaint is that plaintiff's alleged injuries resulted from the sexual harassment that she suffered at the hands of defendant's employee, not from the "negligent operation" of a motor vehicle. Instead, defendant's motor vehicle was the mere situs of plaintiff's alleged injuries. Reviewing the pleadings in a light most favorable to plaintiff, we conclude that defendant was entitled to immunity from plaintiff's claim.
Plaintiff next contends that the trial court erred in finding that she had not sufficiently alleged that she was denied access to public services and accommodations under the Civil Rights Act. We disagree.
A motion under MCR 2.116(C)(8) tests the legal sufficiency of a claim based on the pleadings alone. Meyer v City of Center Line, 242 Mich App 560, 572; 619 NW2d 182 (2000). All factual al
Page 1 2 3 Michigan Employee Leasing Services
Employee Leasing Services
|
| |
to fill out a simple form to connect to Employee Leasing Services in your area.
|
|