Michigan Supreme Court to Weigh Whether Profit-Seeking Beaches Are Government Functions

## A Drowning in Legal Questions

Brandon Chambers, 18, was swimming with friends at a South Haven beach on September 6, 2020, when he drowned. His friends were rescued, but Chambers went under. His mother Crystal LeDuke filed a wrongful death lawsuit in May 2024, naming the city as the defendant.

The case has now reached the Michigan Supreme Court, which on April 3, 2026, ordered oral argument on whether South Haven has governmental immunity in the lawsuit.

The legal question is deceptively simple: Does a city beach operation count as a "governmental function" that shields the municipality from liability, or is it a "proprietary function" — a business-type activity — that opens the city to lawsuits for injuries?

> The point of debate is whether the city's beach operations qualify as a proprietary function, or business-type activity, an exception to governmental immunity protections that would open up the city to liability in Chambers' death, according to News Channel 3.

The Michigan Court of Appeals sided with the city in September 2025, ruling that South Haven's beach operations do not qualify as a proprietary function because they do not operate their beaches for profit.

But the city and its attorneys argue that beaches generate profit, even if those funds aren't used for anything other than maintaining the beaches.

> The city doesn't disagree that the beaches generate profit, however, they maintain that those funds aren't used for anything other than maintaining the beaches and do not fund any other business-type activities such as roads, parks or utilities, according to News Channel 3.

The Supreme Court is directing both sides to focus their arguments on whether the appeals court was correct in its ruling.

The high court now has a few options. It can affirm the earlier ruling, overturn it, or provide a new legal interpretation of the issue.

## A Profitable Beach, No Profit Motive?

During earlier proceedings, attorneys debated not only responsibility for the incident but also how the city uses money generated from its beach operations.

The case has drawn attention because it touches on a fundamental tension in municipal law: when does a government activity cross the line from a public function to a business operation?

The city of South Haven operates its beaches as a government function. The beaches are publicly accessible, maintained with taxpayer funds, and overseen by city officials. But the city also admits that beach operations generate revenue through parking fees, concessions, and other sources.

The legal distinction matters because Michigan's governmental immunity law protects municipalities from being sued for injuries that occur during governmental functions. But when a city engages in business-type activities, that immunity protection vanishes.

If the Supreme Court overturns the Court of Appeals ruling, South Haven could face liability for injuries on its beaches. If it affirms the ruling, the city remains shielded from lawsuits.

But beyond South Haven, the decision could set an important legal precedent regarding the scope of government immunity and the responsibility of public entities to ensure the safety of beachgoers, especially at popular tourist destinations like the Lake Michigan shoreline.

> This case could set an important legal precedent regarding the scope of government immunity and the responsibility of public entities to ensure the safety of beachgoers, especially at popular tourist destinations like the Lake Michigan shoreline, according to South Haven Today.

## What's at Stake

The case has taken on added urgency because South Haven has been without a lifeguard program since 2001. The city council last year moved forward with a plan to bring back lifeguards after the community went without for more than two decades.

Speaking to the council this week, Police Chief Adam DeBoer said new beach safety manager David Figueredo is on the job and working hard each day to settle in and get things in place.

The institution of Figueredo's position comes after the city's recent approval to purchase two lifeguard towers and two lifeguard stands as part of the first phase of a new lifeguard program.

The city plans to hire 10 lifeguards by Memorial Day. In the past 20-odd years, there has been a call coming from some in the community to bring back lifeguards to South Haven's beaches.

The beaches have seen a number of drownings, wrongful death lawsuits, and other safety concerns in the absence of lifeguards.

The Supreme Court's decision on this case will shape not only whether South Haven can be held liable for Chambers' death, but also how Michigan courts view the balance between governmental immunity and public safety on recreational properties.

## The Supreme Court's Options

The Michigan Supreme Court is scheduled to hear oral arguments in the case in April 2026. The justices will examine whether the Court of Appeals correctly classified beach operations as a governmental function.

The court has several options when it issues its ruling:

* Affirm the Court of Appeals ruling that South Haven has governmental immunity

* Overturn the ruling and allow the wrongful death lawsuit to proceed

* Issue its own legal interpretation of the issue that could apply to similar cases across the state

The decision will have ripple effects beyond South Haven. Other Michigan municipalities with recreational properties — beaches, parks, pools, and other public facilities — may find their legal liability affected by how the Supreme Court rules on this case.

The justices will be weighing a fundamental question of Michigan law: When does a government activity become a business operation for liability purposes? And what does that mean for public entities that operate recreational facilities that generate revenue but serve public purposes?