MCL § 691.1407(2) – Governmental immunity from negligence liability (general rule)
Table of Contents
Code Details
Chapter 691
Act 170 of 1964
Exact Statute Text
Click to view the complete statute text
Sec. 7.(1) Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided in this act, this act does not modify or restrict the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed before July 1, 1965, which immunity is affirmed.
(2) Except as otherwise provided in this section, and without regard to the discretionary or ministerial nature of the conduct in question, each officer and employee of a governmental agency, each volunteer acting on behalf of a governmental agency, and each member of a board, council, commission, or statutorily created task force of a governmental agency is immune from tort liability for an injury to a person or damage to property caused by the officer, employee, or member while in the course of employment or service or caused by the volunteer while acting on behalf of a governmental agency if all of the following are met:
(a) The officer, employee, member, or volunteer is acting or reasonably believes he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority.
(b) The governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function.
(c) The officer’s, employee’s, member’s, or volunteer’s conduct does not amount to gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury or damage.
(3) Subsection (2) does not alter the law of intentional torts as it existed before July 7, 1986.
(4) This act does not grant immunity to a governmental agency or an employee or agent of a governmental agency with respect to providing medical care or treatment to a patient, except medical care or treatment provided to a patient in a hospital owned or operated by the department of community health or a hospital owned or operated by the department of corrections and except care or treatment provided by an uncompensated search and rescue operation medical assistant or tactical operation medical assistant.
(5) A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her judicial, legislative, or executive authority.
(6) A guardian ad litem is immune from civil liability for an injury to a person or damage to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her authority as guardian ad litem. This subsection applies to actions filed before, on, or after May 1, 1996.
(7) The immunity provided by this act does not apply to liability of a governmental agency under the MISS DIG underground facility damage prevention and safety act.
(8) As used in this section:
(a) “Gross negligence” means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.
(b) “Search and rescue operation” means an action by a governmental agency to search for, rescue, or recover victims of a natural or manmade disaster, accident, or emergency on land or water.
(c) “Search and rescue operation medical assistant” means an individual licensed to practice 1 or more of the occupations listed in subdivision (e), acting within the scope of the license, and assisting a governmental agency in a search and rescue operation.
(d) “Tactical operation” means a coordinated, planned action by a special operations, weapons, or response team of a law enforcement agency that is 1 of the following:
(i) Taken to deal with imminent violence, a riot, an act of terrorism, or a similar civic emergency.
(ii) The entry into a building, area, watercraft, aircraft, land vehicle, or body of water to seize evidence, or to arrest an individual for a felony, under the authority of a warrant issued by a court.
(iii) Training for the team.
(e) “Tactical operation medical assistant” means an individual licensed to practice 1 or more of the following, acting within the scope of the license, and assisting law enforcement officers while they are engaged in a tactical operation:
(i) Medicine, osteopathic medicine and surgery, or as a registered professional nurse, under article 15 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.16101 to 333.18838.
(ii) As an emergency medical technician, emergency medical technician specialist, or paramedic under part 209 of the public health code, 1978 PA 368, MCL 333.20901 to 333.20979.
MCL § 691.1407(2) Summary
This section of the Michigan Governmental Tort Liability Act provides a general rule for when individual officers, employees, volunteers, and board members of governmental agencies are protected from personal lawsuits alleging negligence. Regardless of whether the individual’s conduct was discretionary (requiring judgment) or ministerial (routine, specific tasks), they are immune from tort liability for injuries or property damage caused while acting in their official capacity. This immunity applies if three specific conditions are met: (1) the individual was acting or reasonably believed they were acting within their official authority; (2) the governmental agency itself was engaged in a governmental function; and (3) the individual’s conduct did not amount to “gross negligence” that directly caused the injury or damage. In essence, it shields public servants from liability for ordinary negligence but allows for claims when their actions are grossly negligent.
Purpose of MCL § 691.1407(2)
The legislative intent behind this statute is to protect Michigan’s public servants—ranging from police officers and teachers to city council members and volunteer firefighters—from the threat of personal tort lawsuits stemming from their official duties. Without this form of protection, individuals might be deterred from public service or from making difficult, but necessary, decisions for fear of personal financial ruin. The law aims to ensure that governmental functions can be carried out effectively without public employees constantly looking over their shoulders. By granting immunity for ordinary negligence, but maintaining accountability for “gross negligence,” the statute strikes a balance: it encourages public service while still providing a recourse for citizens who suffer harm due to truly reckless disregard by governmental personnel.
Real-World Example of MCL § 691.1407(2)
Consider a municipal bus driver, Sarah, who is employed by the city’s public transportation department. While driving her route, she experiences a sudden downpour, and despite driving carefully, the bus hydroplanes on a slick patch of road, resulting in a minor collision with another vehicle. Passengers on the bus sustain minor injuries.
In this scenario, MCL § 691.1407(2) would likely protect Sarah from personal liability for the passengers’ injuries.
1. Scope of Authority: Sarah was clearly acting within her scope of employment as a bus driver for the city.
2. Governmental Function: Providing public transportation is considered a governmental function in Michigan.
3. Gross Negligence: Her conduct, driving carefully but encountering unforeseen hydroplaning conditions, would almost certainly not meet the standard for “gross negligence” (conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results). While an argument for ordinary negligence might be made (e.g., perhaps she could have slowed down slightly more), it is highly unlikely to be deemed gross negligence.
Therefore, Sarah would likely be immune from personal liability. Any claim would instead need to focus on potential liability of the governmental agency itself, under different exceptions to immunity, such as the motor vehicle exception (MCL § 691.1405).
Related Statutes
Several other Michigan statutes are closely related or commonly referenced alongside this particular subsection, providing broader context for governmental immunity:
- MCL § 691.1407(1): This preceding subsection establishes the general immunity for the governmental agency itself when engaged in a governmental function, unless an exception applies. The individual employee’s immunity under subsection (2) often relies on the agency also being engaged in a governmental function.
- MCL § 691.1407(3): This subsection explicitly states that subsection (2) does not alter the existing law regarding intentional torts. This clarifies that the immunity provided to individual employees in (2) primarily pertains to negligence claims, not intentional acts like assault or battery.
- MCL § 691.1407(8)(a): This crucial definitional clause within the same statute defines “gross negligence” as “conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.” This definition is paramount for understanding and applying the exception to immunity found in subsection (2)(c).
- MCL § 691.1405 (Motor Vehicle Exception): This statute outlines an exception to governmental immunity when a governmental agency is involved in an accident caused by the negligent operation of a government-owned motor vehicle. While subsection (2) protects the individual driver, this section might allow a claim against the agency itself.
- MCL § 691.1406 (Public Building Exception): This section details another exception to governmental immunity, allowing claims for injuries arising from dangerous or defective conditions in public buildings. This applies to the agency, not directly to individual employees under (2), but provides another avenue for claims against governmental entities.
Case Law Interpreting MCL § 691.1407(2)
Several Michigan appellate court cases have interpreted and applied the provisions of MCL § 691.1407(2), particularly regarding the “gross negligence” standard and the “governmental function” requirement.
One seminal case frequently cited for defining “gross negligence” in the context of this statute is Maiden v. Rozwood, 461 Mich. 109, 597 N.W.2d 817 (1999)). In *Maiden*, the Michigan Supreme Court clarified that gross negligence requires more than ordinary carelessness; it demands conduct so reckless that it demonstrates a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results. This case emphasizes that the inquiry into gross negligence focuses on the defendant’s state of mind and the level of disregard for potential harm.
Another significant case, Odom v. Wayne County, 482 Mich. 459, 760 N.W.2d 217 (2008)), provided extensive guidance on what constitutes a “governmental function” for purposes of immunity under MCL § 691.1407, a determination crucial for both individual employees under subsection (2) and governmental agencies under subsection (1). The *Odom* court reaffirmed that a governmental function is an activity that is expressly or impliedly mandated or authorized by constitution, statute, or other law.
These cases, among others, help legal practitioners and the public understand the high bar for overcoming governmental immunity for individual employees under this critical statute.
Why MCL § 691.1407(2) Matters in Personal Injury Litigation
MCL § 691.1407(2) is a cornerstone of Michigan personal injury law when a governmental employee’s actions are at issue. For those who have suffered an injury, this statute fundamentally dictates the chances of holding an individual public servant accountable. It means that proving simple negligence—a failure to act with reasonable care—is usually insufficient. Instead, an injured party must prove “gross negligence,” which is defined as conduct demonstrating a reckless disregard for whether harm might occur. This significantly elevates the burden of proof for plaintiffs.
For personal injury attorneys representing clients, this statute requires a thorough investigation into the governmental employee’s specific conduct to determine if it crosses the threshold from ordinary negligence to gross negligence. Lawyers must scrutinize the facts to identify instances where an employee acted with such an extreme lack of concern that it directly caused the injury. This often involves gathering detailed evidence, including internal policies, training records, and witness statements that speak to the employee’s state of mind and awareness of risk.
Conversely, for governmental agencies and their employees, MCL § 691.1407(2) provides a powerful defense against most negligence claims. It offers protection from the personal financial ramifications of lawsuits, allowing public servants to perform their duties without undue fear of litigation for honest mistakes or ordinary errors in judgment. This statutory protection is vital for maintaining essential public services and encouraging individuals to take on roles in government. Ultimately, the statute shapes how personal injury claims against public employees are evaluated, litigated, and defended in Michigan.