Governmental Tort Liability Act (GTLA); Individual governmental immunity; Intentional torts; Ross v Consumers Power Co (On Rehearing); Odom v Wayne Cnty; False arrest; False imprisonment; Malicious prosecution; Intentional infliction of emotional distress (IIED); Probable cause; Misdemeanor stalking; MCL 750.411h; Collateral estoppel; Vicarious liability

The court held that defendant-deputy was entitled to individual governmental immunity and, alternatively, summary disposition due to lack of a genuine issue of material fact on plaintiff’s intentional-tort claims, and that defendant-county was also entitled to summary disposition. Plaintiff sued after the deputy arrested him near his former employer’s premises following threatening voicemails about unpaid wages, prior warnings not to contact or return to the business, and reports from staff that plaintiff had returned and was yelling or gesturing near the building. The trial court granted summary disposition to the county but denied summary disposition to the deputy. On appeal, the court first held that the deputy satisfied the Odom immunity test because he acted within the course and scope of employment, made a discretionary arrest decision, and acted in good faith. It reasoned that “the escalating facts in the record” gave him an “honest, good-faith basis” to believe plaintiff was engaging in illegal threatening behavior. It noted that the criminal court, in dismissing that case, had stated, “I understand why the officer was concerned” with plaintiff’s behavior. The court next held that the false arrest, false imprisonment, and malicious prosecution claims failed on the merits because probable cause existed for misdemeanor stalking. It reasoned that plaintiff’s voicemails, threat to follow staff to their homes and schools, reference to a workplace shooting, later appearance near the business, and conduct toward staff constituted “two or more separate acts demonstrating a continuity of purpose of harassment.” The court also rejected the IIED claim because the deputy “acted reasonably and understandably,” not outrageously. Finally, the court held that the county could not be vicariously liable because the deputy committed no intentional tort and, in any event, the county was immune because no GTLA exception applied. Affirmed in part, reversed in part, and remanded for summary disposition for all defendants.