These 2' cases, consolidated for trial and for this appeal, were brought by Oliver L. Sayers—one in his own right and one as guardian of his son—-for expenses and personal injuries suffered by the son, Ollie Lee Sayers, a pupil of School District No. 1, who was injured while playing on the school grounds. The boy suffered injuries as a result of stepping into a hole created by construction work. These actions were brought against the-contractors constructing new buildings and against the school district itself.
Defendant school district raised the affirmative defense of governmental immunity. .Plaintiff replied, admitting defendant school district was in the exercise of a governmental function, but contending-the school district had waived its immunity by purchasing a policy of general liability insurance.
The lower court granted defendant school district’s motion for summary judgment saying the action was barred by the doctrine of governmental immunity and that the purchase of insurance did not constitute a waiver of this immunity.
We are asked to reverse the trial court by holding the doctrine of governmental immunity is no longer available to a school district. To do so we would have to reverse a number of decisions of our Court dealing with the doctrine of governmental im*219munity as applied to school districts. Under our decisions the school district as an agency of the State has been clothed with the State’s immunity from liability. Whitehead v. Detroit Board of Education, 139 Mich 490; Daniels v. Board of Education of Grand Rapids, 191 Mich 339 (LRA 1916F, 468); Richards v. Birmingham School District, 348 Mich 490.
If we were dealing with the obsolete “king can do no harm” edition of governmental immunity established by the courts, we would not hesitate to strike it down for the reasons sets forth in Parker v. Port Huron Hospital, 361 Mich 1. However, here we are concerned with the repeal of the doctrine of governmental immunity by the legislature through the enactment of PA 1943, No 237, and its re-establishment by the legislature by PA 1945, No 87, which this Court has construed as determining the legislative intent to re-establish the doctrine by statute. Van Antwerp v. State, 334 Mich 593; McDowell v. State Highway Commissioner, 365 Mich 268.
The only other question raised on appeal is whether the purchase of a general liability policy of insurance by defendant school district constitutes a waiver of the defense of governmental immunity. It is pointed out by appellant that Illinois, in the case of Thomas v. Broadlands Community Consolidated School District, 348 Ill App 567 (109 NE2d 636) and in Moore v. Moyle, 405 Ill 555 (92 NE2d 81), has adopted such a rule of law. We find no authority other than the Illinois cases to justify our reversing the Michigan position. We do not feel free to do so in view of the intent of the legislature in re-establishing a defense of governmental immunity in such cases.
*220The orders granting the summary judgments in favor of defendant school district are affirmed. Defendant school district shall have costs.
Dethmers, C. J., and Black, J., concurred with Kavanagh, J.