WeVote
Log In

Bill

JA

Bill

HB 6050

Torts: governmental immunity; governmental agency and employee liability for criminal sexual conduct; allow. Amends sec. 7 of 1964 PA 170 (MCL 691.1407) by adding sec. 7d.

2025-2026 Regular Session Introduced by Joey Andrews and 21 co-sponsors

Public universities and K-12 districts can face civil liability for criminal sexual conduct by their employees or agents if the entity was negligent in hiring/supervision/training

bill electronically reproduced 06/04/2026
#torts:governmentalimmunity
0
WeVote Research Nonpartisan
Bill Summary · HB 6050

Summary of HB 6050 (2025-2026) – Michigan

Purpose and intent

  • This bill amends the Michigan government-tort liability framework established by 1964 PA 170 (MCL 691.1407) to address a gap in immunity for civil liability related to criminal sexual conduct by employees or agents of public universities, colleges, and school districts.
  • It creates a new section (7d) that allows these public entities to be held liable for acts of criminal sexual conduct by their employees or agents under specified conditions, effectively limiting immunity in certain cases.

Key provisions and changes

  • Existing immunity framework (Sec. 7) unchanged in structure, with a primary rule that a governmental agency is immune from tort liability when engaged in governmental functions, and individual officers, employees, volunteers, and board/commission members generally enjoy immunity unless exceptions apply.

    • Immunity remains for traditional governmental functions, with exceptions for certain medical, rescue, and tactical operations, and other enumerated protections (e.g., judges, legislators, guardians ad litem).

  • New Sec. 7d – Liability for criminal sexual conduct by public entities’ employees/agents

    • Public universities/colleges and school districts are not automatically immune from tort liability for criminal sexual conduct (CSC) by an employee or agent during employment or service.
    • Immunity can be defeated if:
    • The entity was negligent in hiring, supervision, or training of the employee/agent; or
    • The entity had actual or constructive knowledge of the CSC and failed to report it to law enforcement.
    • However, liability for CSC is limited by the following conditions:
    • The entity may be held liable only if it had actual or constructive knowledge of a prior act of CSC by the individual, or knowledge of the individual’s propensity to commit CSC, and failed to act to prevent the subsequent conduct.
    • The section clarifies that it does not bar other causes of action against others (e.g., other responsible individuals) and that it applies retroactively to certain preexisting actions as defined.
    • Definitions include:
    • “Criminal sexual conduct” aligned with sections 520b-520g of the Michigan Penal Code.
    • “School district” includes intermediate school districts and public school academies.
    • While retroactive, the provision preserves the broader availability of non-tort remedies or causes of action where applicable.

  • Procedural/timing notes

    • Enacting clause states the act does not take effect unless Senate Bill 257 of the 103rd Legislature becomes law (a condition precedent linking to another bill).
    • The bill contains retroactivity language for actions commenced under a specific provision of the Revised Judicature Act (section 5851b(4)).

Who would be affected

  • Public universities and colleges in Michigan.
  • School districts, including intermediate school districts and public school academies.
  • These entities could face liability under tort theory for CSC by employees or agents if the criteria in Sec. 7d are met.
  • Employees or agents accused of CSC could be subject to civil liability if the entity’s negligence or knowledge/failure to act criteria are satisfied, alongside possible existing criminal liability.

Significant practical implications

  • Shifts risk exposure for public higher education institutions and K-12 districts by providing a pathway to civil liability for CSC, conditioned on negligence or knowledge-and-failure-to-report standards.
  • Places emphasis on human resources practices (hiring, supervision, training) and reporting/notification protocols to law enforcement as critical risk management levers.
  • Could influence district policy on background checks, training on safeguarding, and incident reporting procedures.
  • Retains broader immunity protections for many other governmental functions and individuals, preserving the general framework except where CSC by school-affiliated personnel is involved.

Additional notes

  • The bill’s retroactive application is limited to the specified statutory framework and aligns with an identified scope of “adjudication” terms.
  • The bill includes a comprehensive set of definitions to avoid ambiguity around terms like “gross negligence,” “search and rescue,” and “tactical operation,” though those terms play a minimal role in Sec. 7d and are primarily relevant to the broader immunity framework.

If you want, I can provide a one-page quick reference with a side-by-side of Sec. 7 (existing immunity) versus Sec. 7d (CSC liability) for easier comparison.

Compiled from official sources — confirm details with the bill’s official record.

Sign in to ask a question.