Governmental immunity; Government Tort Liability Act (GTLA); MCL 691.1407(2); Gross negligence; Proximate cause; Intentional torts; Good-faith immunity; Odom v Wayne Cnty; False arrest; False imprisonment; Assault & battery; Intentional & negligent infliction of emotional distress (IIED & NIED); Loss of consortium

The court held that remand was required because the trial court did not make the necessary determinations to support its denial of summary disposition to defendants-police officers. Plaintiffs sued numerous police officers after officers detained plaintiffs-Lisa and Joshua during a shooting investigation, allegedly removed them from the home, handcuffed them, and held them for several minutes before releasing them. On appeal, the court first declined to address defendants’ argument that they were entitled to common-law good-faith immunity on the intentional-tort claims because that issue was first raised in a motion for reconsideration and therefore was not properly preserved. As to plaintiffs’ negligence-based claims, the court held that MCL 691.1407(2) governed and required defendants to establish that they were acting within the scope of their authority, that the governmental agency was engaged in a governmental function, and that their conduct did not amount to gross negligence that was “the proximate cause” of the alleged injury. Although the trial court found it undisputed that the officers acted within their scope as police officers, the court held that it did not analyze whether defendants were engaged in a governmental function or whether their conduct amounted to gross negligence that was the proximate cause of plaintiffs’ injuries. The court also noted that the trial court appeared to analyze only whether the complaint was “sufficiently pled,” and did not determine whether a factual dispute existed under MCR 2.116(C)(7) or whether defendants were entitled to immunity as a matter of law. Because the trial court also failed to separately analyze plaintiffs’ gross-negligence, ultra vires, and IIED theories, further proceedings were required. Vacated and remanded.