Police Brutality & Civil Rights
Governmental Immunity
7 statutes with plain-language summaries, case relevance, source links, and related Michigan practice areas.
Statutory text checked against the Michigan Compiled Laws, complete through PA 16 of 2026, on June 12, 2026.
Governmental Immunity
7 statutes"Except as otherwise provided in this act, a governmental agency is immune from tort liability if the governmental agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function."Read Full Statute
Michigan's Governmental Immunity Act grants government agencies — including police departments and municipalities — broad immunity from negligence claims arising from governmental functions. A specific statutory exception must apply to overcome this immunity.
Governmental immunity is a primary defense to Michigan state-law tort claims. Federal § 1983 claims are not barred by this state immunity statute, but qualified immunity, absolute immunity, and Monell proof can still control the federal case.
We plead federal constitutional claims separately from state-law theories and identify any statutory exception or individual-capacity path that may preserve a Michigan tort claim.
"Each officer and employee of a governmental agency, each volunteer acting on behalf of a governmental agency, and each member of a board, council, commission, or statutorily created task force" is immune if the statutory scope, governmental-function, and gross-negligence requirements are met. "Gross negligence" means conduct so reckless as to demonstrate a substantial lack of concern for whether an injury results.Read Full Statute
Individual government officers, employees, members, and volunteers generally have state tort immunity when acting within scope, the agency is engaged in a governmental function, and their conduct is not gross negligence that is the proximate cause of the injury. The statute defines gross negligence as conduct so reckless as to show a substantial lack of concern for whether injury results.
This high standard can defeat state-law negligence claims. It does not control federal § 1983 liability, but federal claims have their own immunity defenses.
We pursue federal claims where supported, while building the factual record for gross negligence or intentional tort theories when Michigan law permits them.
"A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons or damages to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her judicial, legislative, or executive authority."Read Full Statute
Judges, legislators, and elective or highest appointive executive officials of all levels of government are immune from state tort liability when acting within the scope of their judicial, legislative, or executive authority.
This provision can bar state tort claims against covered high-level officials. It is not the subsection governing ordinary police-officer gross negligence.
When high-level official conduct is involved, we separate barred state tort theories from any distinct constitutional, administrative, or appellate remedy.
MCL 691.1407(2) covers officers, employees, board members, and volunteers acting for a governmental agency when the statutory scope, governmental-function, and gross-negligence requirements are met.Read Full Statute
MCL 691.1407(2) covers officers, employees, certain board members, and volunteers acting on behalf of governmental agencies. The same subsection contains the scope, governmental-function, and gross-negligence requirements.
Volunteer status can matter in auxiliary, ride-along, reserve, and community-policing situations, but the operative immunity rule is subsection (2), not subsection (7).
We identify each participant's role and authority, then apply the subsection (2) requirements to decide whether a state-law claim is viable.
"Subsection (2) does not alter the law of intentional torts as it existed before July 7, 1986."Read Full Statute
MCL 691.1407(3) says subsection (2) does not alter the law of intentional torts as it existed before July 7, 1986. That matters for state-law assault, battery, false imprisonment, and similar intentional tort claims against individual officers.
Police-misconduct cases often include intentional-tort allegations. Those claims are not analyzed the same way as gross-negligence claims and may involve good-faith and discretionary-act defenses from Michigan case law.
We plead intentional torts separately from negligence theories and evaluate the officer's good faith, scope of authority, and discretionary conduct under the correct Michigan framework.
Sections 691.1401 through 691.1406 define Governmental Immunity Act terms and set key exceptions and procedures for highways, highway-defect knowledge and notice, government-owned motor vehicles, and public buildings.Read Full Statute
The Governmental Immunity Act broadly protects governmental agencies, but early sections preserve limited exceptions and procedural rules for claims involving highway defects, negligent operation of government-owned motor vehicles, and dangerous or defective public buildings.
When a civil rights incident also involves a government vehicle, public building, road defect, or other statutory exception, a state-law claim may proceed alongside the federal § 1983 claim if the procedural requirements are met.
We assess all applicable immunity exceptions in every civil rights case to build the widest possible net of legal theories and defendants.
"The immunity of the governmental agency shall not apply to actions to recover for bodily injury or property damage arising out of the performance of a proprietary function as defined in this section." Proprietary function means an activity conducted primarily for pecuniary profit, excluding activity normally supported by taxes or fees.Read Full Statute
A governmental agency is not immune when it is engaged in a proprietary function: an activity conducted primarily to produce a pecuniary profit and not normally supported by taxes or fees.
The proprietary function exception is narrow and fact-specific, but it can matter when a government entity is acting more like a profit-driven business than a traditional government agency.
We analyze the purpose, funding, and revenue structure of government-operated programs to determine whether a proprietary-function theory can support a state-law claim alongside federal civil rights claims.