Student finger injury; Governmental immunity; The Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); Governmental function (MCL 691.1401(b)); Allegations of gross negligence by individual defendants; Lack of a gross negligence exception for a governmental agency; Waiver of public-building exception argument; Whether there is a statutory exception as to mandatory reporting of child abuse under MCL 722.623

Holding that defendant-school district was engaged in a governmental function and that plaintiff failed to plead his claims in avoidance of governmental immunity, the court reversed the denial of governmental immunity to the school. Plaintiff sued defendants “for various claims involving negligence after he suffered a finger injury during the school day. The school and its principal moved for summary disposition” based on governmental immunity. The trial court granted summary disposition as to the claims against the principal but denied it as to the school. The court noted that plaintiff did not dispute that the school is a governmental agency or that his claims against it are for tort liability. Thus, it was immune from the claims unless he could “show that the school was acting outside of its governmental functions or an express statutory exception applies.” As to the former, the court concluded “the hiring, training, and supervising of teachers and other school personnel are functions that constitute ‘the essence of government.’” As to the latter, plaintiff failed to “assert a specific statutory exception under the GTLA” in his complaint, his summary disposition brief, or at oral argument. He also did not “plead factual allegations in his complaint that would clearly fit within one of the GTLA’s exception.” While he repeatedly pointed to the individual defendants’ alleged gross negligence, there “is no statutory exception to immunity under the GTLA for the gross negligence of a governmental agency.” He tried to rectify the omission “by arguing for the first time that the GTLA’s public-building exception applies.” This failed for two reasons – (1) the issue was waived for appellate review and (2) even if it had been preserved, nothing in the complaint suggested “that somehow the building caused his injuries.” As to liability for failing to report child abuse under MCL 722.623, he did not point “to a statutory exception that would disallow governmental immunity in regard to mandatory reporting.” He failed to plead or otherwise make “a viable argument in avoidance of governmental immunity under the GTLA.” Remanded with instructions to the trial court to enter summary disposition for the school.