Bandfield v. Wood

Michigan Supreme Court

Bandfield v. Wood

364 N.W.2d 280, 421 Mich. 774

CourtMichigan Supreme Court

DecidedMarch 19, 1985

Docket67682, (Calendar No. 16)

StatusPublished

Cited by12 cases

This text of 364 N.W.2d 280 (Bandfield v. Wood) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering Michigan Supreme Court primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

Bandfield v. Wood, 364 N.W.2d 280, 421 Mich. 774 (Mich. 1985).

Pincite

Opinion

*775 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was an inmate at a small minimum security facility operated by the Department of Corrections. He went to the facility’s first-aid room complaining of a cough and was given what appeared to be cough syrup. Plaintiff drank the liquid and suffered injury. Subsequent analysis disclosed that the liquid he drank contained lye or other chemical substances generally found in cleaning fluid. Plaintiff instituted this negligence action against the individual defendants, employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections. We granted leave following the Court of Appeals reversal of the defendants’ summary judgment.

Pursuant to the rule announced in the recently decided Ross v Consumers Power Co, 420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), we need only determine whether the activities complained of in the instant case are "discretionary-decisional” or "ministerial-operational.”

The Court of Appeals analyzed plaintiff’s negligence allegations as follows:

"Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleged that defendants failed to properly supervise the employees and personnel entrusted with the care of the first-aid room. Since this contention can be readily construed as an allegation that defendants’ supervisory acts fell short of established procedures, this Court finds that defendants’ complained-of acts were ministerial. See Vargo v Svitchan [100 Mich App 809, 816; 301 NW2d 1 (1980)], and Cook [v Bennett, 94 Mich App 93, 101; 288 NW2d 609 (1979)]. Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants breached their duties to keep the first-aid area locked and to see that the medicines were not tampered with can similarly be construed as allegations that defendants neglected to follow established security procedures, and thus that these alleged acts or omissions were ministerial. Therefore, the lower court erred in finding that defendants’ acts were protected under governmental *776 immunity and in granting summary judgment on that basis.”

We are in agreement with this analysis and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Williams, C.J., and Levin, Ryan, Brickley, and Boyle, JJ., concurred. Cavanagh and Riley, JJ., took no part in the decision of this case.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

*775 Per Curiam.

Plaintiff was an inmate at a small minimum security facility operated by the Department of Corrections. He went to the facility’s first-aid room complaining of a cough and was given what appeared to be cough syrup. Plaintiff drank the liquid and suffered injury. Subsequent analysis disclosed that the liquid he drank contained lye or other chemical substances generally found in cleaning fluid. Plaintiff instituted this negligence action against the individual defendants, employees of the Michigan Department of Corrections. We granted leave following the Court of Appeals reversal of the defendants’ summary judgment.

Pursuant to the rule announced in the recently decided Ross v Consumers Power Co, 420 Mich 567; 363 NW2d 641 (1984), we need only determine whether the activities complained of in the instant case are "discretionary-decisional” or "ministerial-operational.”

The Court of Appeals analyzed plaintiff’s negligence allegations as follows:

"Plaintiff, in his complaint, alleged that defendants failed to properly supervise the employees and personnel entrusted with the care of the first-aid room. Since this contention can be readily construed as an allegation that defendants’ supervisory acts fell short of established procedures, this Court finds that defendants’ complained-of acts were ministerial. See Vargo v Svitchan [100 Mich App 809, 816; 301 NW2d 1 (1980)], and Cook [v Bennett, 94 Mich App 93, 101; 288 NW2d 609 (1979)]. Plaintiff’s allegations that defendants breached their duties to keep the first-aid area locked and to see that the medicines were not tampered with can similarly be construed as allegations that defendants neglected to follow established security procedures, and thus that these alleged acts or omissions were ministerial. Therefore, the lower court erred in finding that defendants’ acts were protected under governmental *776 immunity and in granting summary judgment on that basis.”

We are in agreement with this analysis and affirm the decision of the Court of Appeals.

Williams, C.J., and Levin, Ryan, Brickley, and Boyle, JJ., concurred. Cavanagh and Riley, JJ., took no part in the decision of this case.

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

364 N.W.2d 280, 421 Mich. 774, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/bandfield-v-wood-mich-1985.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack