Torts: governmental immunity; governmental agency and employee liability for criminal sexual conduct; allow. Amends sec. 7 of 1964 PA 170 (MCL 691.1407) & adds sec. 7d. TIE BAR WITH: SB 1187'24
If enacted, SB 1191 would significantly alter Michigan's approach to governmental immunity, especially in the context of education-related institutions. Current laws provide broad protections for government entities against tort claims; however, this bill narrows those protections when a government agency, school district, or public university fails to act responsibly regarding potential misconduct. This could result in increased legal exposure for such institutions, prompting them to reassess their training and reporting protocols.
Senate Bill 1191 aims to amend the existing legislation on governmental immunity, particularly addressing the liability of public universities, colleges, and school districts regarding cases of criminal sexual misconduct committed by their employees or agents. The bill establishes that these entities may not be immune from tort liability in instances where there is negligence in hiring, supervision, or training of employees believed to have engaged in such misconduct. This shift seeks to hold educational institutions accountable for both their employees' actions and their management practices concerning allegations of misconduct.
The sentiment surrounding SB 1191 appears to be mixed. Proponents argue that the legislation is a necessary step in ensuring accountability for educational institutions, particularly in light of several high-profile cases of misconduct within universities. Conversely, opponents express concerns that this bill may expose institutions to a flood of litigation, potentially diverting resources from education to legal defenses. This divergence highlights a broader debate regarding the balance between protecting the rights of victims and ensuring the operational integrity of educational entities.
Notable points of contention in discussions about SB 1191 include the potential consequences for public universities and colleges in terms of funding and resource allocation, as well as debates over what constitutes negligence in hiring or supervision. The retroactive applicability of the bill—allowing for actions commenced before its enactment—also raises questions about the implications for pending cases and legal interpretations surrounding educational negligence. Opponents argue that imposing such liabilities may inadvertently lead to harsher administrative measures against employees to avoid legal consequences, which may, in turn, affect campus cultures.