Haberl v. Rose

I respectfully dissent.

i

nature of the case

Defendant, a school employee, drove her own car and, while acting within the scope of her employment, she negligently collided with plaintiff Tim Haberi’s car, causing him serious injuries. Because defendant was performing a governmental function when she caused the accident, and because she was not grossly negligent, she should be immune from tort liability under the clear language of MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107). We should reject plaintiffs’ claim that MCL 257.401(1); MSA 9.2101(1) (which imposes liability upon the owner of a vehicle for negligence)…