NORA DOWNS V GANNETT COMPANY
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
STATE OF MICHIGAN
COURT OF APPEALS
NORA DOWNS,
UNPUBLISHED
September 28, 2001
Plaintiff-Appellee,
v
No. 223518
Oakland Circuit Court
LC No. 98-010276-NZ
CITY OF SOUTHFIELD,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
THE GANNETT COMPANY, THE DETROIT
NEWS, INC., KNIGHT-RIDDER, INC., and
DETROIT FREE PRESS, INC.,
Defendants.
Before: Cavanagh, P.J., and Markey and Cooper, JJ.
MEMORANDUM.
Defendant, City of Southfield, appeals from the circuit court’s order denying its motion
for summary disposition based on governmental immunity. We reverse. This appeal is being
decided without oral argument pursuant to MCR 7.214(E).
MCL 691.1407 grants broad immunity to governmental agencies such as defendant.
Exceptions to the broad grant of governmental immunity must be narrowly construed. Collins v
Ferndale, 234 Mich App 625, 628; 599 NW2d 757 (1999).
The gross negligence exception set forth in MCL 691.1407(2)(c) applies to officers,
employees, volunteers, and committee members working for government agencies. This
exception does not state that it applies to agencies themselves. Since exceptions to governmental
immunity must be narrowly construed, the circuit court erred by applying the gross negligence
exception to defendant. See Gracey v Wayne Co Clerk, 213 Mich App 412, 420-421; 540 NW2d
710 (1995), overruled on other grounds by American Transmissions, Inc v Attorney General, 454
Mich 135; 560 NW2d 50 (1997).
-1-
Nor can defendant be held vicariously liable for the acts of its employees or agents since
those persons were engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function, i.e.,
dissemination of information to the press or public. Defendant has a duty to provide information
upon request under the Freedom of Information Act, MCL 15.231 et seq. Responding to press
inquiries regarding the propriety of an agency or official’s actions is a proper governmental
function. See American Transmissions, Inc, supra at 144. Regardless of whether one of
defendant’s agents or employees acted with gross negligence in carrying out this governmental
function, it was still a governmental function entitling defendant to immunity from plaintiff’s tort
claims. See Ross v Consumers Power (On Rehearing), 420 Mich 567, 625; 363 NW2d 641
(1984); Payton v Detroit, 211 Mich App 375, 393; 536 NW2d 233 (1995). In sum, plaintiff’s
tort claims against defendant are barred by governmental immunity; therefore, the circuit court
erred in denying its motion for summary disposition of such claims.
Reversed.
/s/ Mark J. Cavanagh
/s/ Jane E. Markey
/s/ Jessica R. Cooper
-2-
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
