Order Michigan Supreme Court
Lansing, Michigan
April 13, 2007 Clifford W. Taylor,
Chief Justice
131607 Michael F. Cavanagh
Elizabeth A. Weaver
Marilyn Kelly
Maura D. Corrigan
JASON BAKER, Robert P. Young, Jr.
Plaintiff-Appellee, Stephen J. Markman,
Justices
v SC: 131607
COA: 264914
Livingston CC: 04-020847-CD
MICHAEL COUCHMAN,
Defendant-Appellant,
and
PINCKNEY COMMUNITY SCHOOLS,
Defendant.
_________________________________________/
On March 7, 2007, the Court heard oral argument on the application for leave to
appeal the May 30, 2006 judgment of the Court of Appeals. On order of the Court, the
application is again considered. MCR 7.302(G)(1). In lieu of granting leave to appeal,
we REVERSE the judgment of the Court of Appeals for the reasons stated in Court of
Appeals Judge O’Connell’s partial dissent, and we REMAND this case to the Livingston
Circuit Court for entry of summary disposition in favor of the defendant superintendent
pursuant to MCR 2.116(C)(7).
TAYLOR, C.J., concurs with the reversal of the Court of Appeals judgment and
states as follows:
I agree with reversal of the Court of Appeals judgment because the defendant
superintendent is entitled to absolute governmental immunity from suit under MCL
691.1407(5) (“A judge, a legislator, and the elective or highest appointive executive
official of all levels of government are immune from tort liability for injuries to persons
or damages to property if he or she is acting within the scope of his or her judicial,
legislative, or executive authority.”)
KELLY and YOUNG, JJ., join the statement of TAYLOR, C.J.
2
MARKMAN, J., concurs and states as follows:
I fully concur in the decision to reverse the judgment of the Court of Appeals and
to remand the case for entry of an order dismissing plaintiff’s claim. I would do so on the
ground that plaintiff has failed to state a claim. To state a claim for tortious interference
with a business relationship, a plaintiff must allege tortious interference by a third party.
See Reed v Michigan Metro Girl Scout Council, 201 Mich App 10, 13 (1993); Dzierwa v
Michigan Oil Co, 152 Mich App 281, 287-288 (1986). Here, defendant is not a third
party to the business relationship at issue--plaintiff’s employment as the school resource
officer for Pinckney Community Schools. See Baker v Couchman, 271 Mich App 174,
193 n 3, 199-200 (2006) (O’Connell, J., concurring in part and dissenting in part).
Accordingly, plaintiff has failed to state a claim upon which relief can be granted and
dismissal is appropriate.
YOUNG, J., joins the statement of MARKMAN, J.
I, Corbin R. Davis, Clerk of the Michigan Supreme Court, certify that the
foregoing is a true and complete copy of the order entered at the direction of the Court.
April 13, 2007 _________________________________________
p0410 Clerk
Baker v. Couchman
Combined Opinion