Wrongful death action; Governmental immunity under the Governmental Tort Liability Act (MCL 691.1401 et seq.); MCL 691.1407(1); Mack v. City of Detroit; Milot v. Department of Transp.; Maskery v. Board of Regents of Univ. of MI; Fairley v. Department of Corrs.; The proprietary function exception; MCL 691.1413; Coleman v. Kootsillas; Hyde v. University of MI Bd. of Regents; Herman v. City of Detroit; Goodhue v. Department of Transp.; Transou v. City of Pontiac; Ward v. Michigan State Univ. (On Remand); “Or”; Blumenthal v. Berkshire Life Ins. Co.; Heckathorn v. Heckathorn; Michigan Pub. Serv. Co. v. City of Cheboygan; Distinguishing taxes & fees; Dawson v. Secretary of State; City of Dearborn v. Michigan State Tax Comm’n; Bolt v. City of Lansing; Merrelli v. City of St. Clair Shores; Vernor v. Secretary of State; Krohn v. Home-Owners Ins. Co.; Effect of regulation of rates; MCL 460.6a(1); MCL 460.11; Davis v. City of Detroit; Burden of proof; Dextrom v. Wexford Cnty.

Holding that defendant-municipal electric company was entitled to governmental immunity because there was no question of fact that the proprietary function exception to governmental immunity applied, the court affirmed the trial court’s order granting it summary disposition of plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim. Plaintiffs sued defendant for the wrongful death of the decedent, who was electrocuted while trimming a tree. On appeal, the court first found that defendant’s primary purpose is not pecuniary profit. In addition, even if the converse was true, it would “nevertheless find that defendant entitled to governmental immunity because the activity at issue was ‘normally supported by taxes and fees.’” The court rejected plaintiffs’ arguments that “fees” must be compulsory, and its claim that the geographic scope of defendant’s activity is determinative, noting it is not “dispositive for purposes of the proprietary function exception whether a particular governmental entity’s specific activity is actually supported, or even supportable, by taxes or fees.” Finally, the court rejected their contention that defendant was obligated to provide evidence comparing its fees and profitability to those of similar communities, noting that the term “‘governmental function’ is to be broadly construed, and the statutory exceptions are to be narrowly construed. . . . Electrical utility services are commonly understood to be supported by fees, and intensive regulation of those fees by statute and the Michigan Public Service Commission indicate that provision of electrical utility services is not a proprietary activity.”