(concurring in part, dissenting in part). I concur with Justice Levin’s conclusions through part IV. I dissent from the conclusions stated in part V concerning the individual defendants’ liability.
The superintendent, principal and teacher were performing primarily discretionary activities that are of essence to government. The duties owed to the public by these employees transcend any private duty. Consequently, these employees are immune from liability as to any alleged ordinary negligence claim. I would remand this case for trial as to defendant Oscoda Area Schools.