(concurring). I concur with Justice Ryan that the activities conducted by the Kalamazoo State Hospital, a public mental hospital, are governmental functions and, therefore, are immune from tort liability. The opposite conclusion was reached relative to general hospitals in Parker v Highland Park, ante, 404 Mich 183; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), also decided today. Accordingly, it may be gleaned that my rationale for retaining immunity in this case differs from my colleagues but is consistent with Parker.
Government plays a pervasive role in the area of mental health. This state’s annual budget includes a substantial appropriation in this field. See, e.g., *2141978 PA 407. Our Legislature has declared as public policy, "that services for the care, treatment, or rehabilitation of those who are seriously mentally handicapped shall always be fostered and supported”. MCL 330.1116; MSA 14.800(116). See also Const 1963, art 8, § 8.
Furthermore, to advance this public policy the Legislature has mandated the courts to provide for proper civil and criminal disposition of persons who have serious mental disease. See MCL 330.1400 et seq.; MSA 14.800(400) et seqMCL 330.2050; MSA 14.800(1050). Access to public mental hospitals is essential to effectively process probate and circuit court commitment proceedings. Clearly, the number of private mental hospitals available to the judiciary to deal with the substantial institutional needs Of the public is inadequate.
The day-to-day care by an attendant, physician or other employee on the staff of a mental hospital represents a governmental function furthering the public need to segregate, treat and rehabilitate citizens suffering from mental disease who cannot otherwise care for themselves and who often are committed voluntarily or involuntarily through governmental action.
Accordingly, as public mental hospitals perform an essentially unique activity mandated by legislative action, immunity must be extended as a governmental function under the statute. The proper planning and carrying out of this function can effectively be accomplished only by the government. The function is essentially governmental.
It is recognized that an analytical demarcation between general and mental hospitals is far from perfect in this imperfect world. However, the rationale is an attempt to evolve a just application of the term governmental function within the confines of the present statute.
*215The Legislature has left the interpretation of governmental function to the courts. Of necessity, until this term is definitively refined, it is our responsibility to come to grips with the issue on a case-by-case basis.
The Court of Appeals decision is aifirmed.
Kavanagh, C.J.(for reversal). The issue here is whether the operation of a state mental hospital is a "governmental function”, rendering the state immune from tort liability under MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107). For the reasons stated by Justice Fitzgerald in Parker v Highland Park, ante, 404 Mich 183; 273 NW2d 413 (1978), we hold that it is not.
The statute provides:
"Except as in this act otherwise provided, all governmental agencies shall be immune from tort liability in all cases wherein the government agency is engaged in the exercise or discharge of a governmental function. Except as otherwise provided herein, this act shall not be construed as modifying or restricting the immunity of the state from tort liability as it existed heretofore, which immunity is affirmed.” MCL 691.1407; MSA 3.996(107).
In order to constitute a "governmental function” under the statute, the activity must be "sui generis governmental — of essence to governing”. Parker, 193. Because the operation of a mental hospital is not an activity which can be done only by the government, it is not a "governmental function” and there is no statutory immunity from tort liability.
Levin and Fitzgerald, JJ., concurred with Kavanagh, C.J.