Recent Developments in Virginia Sovereign Immunity Law - June 2012
The doctrine of “主权豁免权” stems from the ancient common law proposition that the king or queen (“the sovereign”) cannot be sued without his or her consent. While this was once absolute immunity under the common law, it has been abrogated in various ways over the centuries, but is still a strong factor in determining whether liability exists against public governmental entities and their employees within the Commonwealth of Virginia. 最近, the Supreme Court of Virginia was called upon to interpret application of both statutory and common law 主权豁免权 provisions in the Commonwealth.
4月20日, 2012, the Supreme Court of Virginia addressed two cases involving aspects of 主权豁免权, one involving a claim against the governmental entity directly, 在这种情况下是阿尔伯马尔县, and the second involving a claim against a governmental employee, 格洛斯特高中的副校长. 在第一种情况下， Seabolt v. 阿尔伯马尔县， (记录没有. 110733), 原告对县政府提起诉讼, alleging she was injured as a result of the County’s gross negligence in maintaining a public park. Several prior reported cases allowed lawsuits against cities and towns pursuant to Code Section 15.2-1809 which waived 主权豁免权 for cities or towns operating parks and other recreational facilities for acts of gross negligence. 弗吉尼亚最高法院, 然而, upheld dismissal of the suit on the basis of 主权豁免权 because the County as the sovereign could not be sued unless the immunity were specifically waived. 由于法令只涉及城市和城镇， 主权豁免权 had not been waived for counties, and full common law immunity applied. 第15条的修订.2-1809是可以预期的结果. 在英联邦的许多地区, cities and towns will likely be pushing for amendments to make counties equally liable. 例如, one would be hard pressed to argue that citizens of Henrico, 切斯特菲尔德 and Hanover Counties could use City of Richmond Parks and sue if hurt, 但里士满居民使用Henrico, 切斯特菲尔德, or Hanover Parks could not because of 主权豁免权. The same would be true of residents of James City and York Counties utilizing Newport News or Williamsburg recreational facilities and Newport News or Williamsburg residents using James City County or York facilities. 然而, 到目前为止, the Doctrine of Sovereign Immunity remains alive and well in the Commonwealth of Virginia and only careful statutory amendments through state law can create a waiver.
第二个案件的判决是 伯恩斯v. 盖格农. That case again pointed out the need for statutory specificity in 主权豁免权 waivers. 盖格农 was severely injured as a result of a beating received in a Gloucester School cafeteria. The beating occurred after an assistant principal received warning two hours before that a fight was going to occur that day involving 盖格农. 在向报案的学生保证之后, the assistant principal did nothing and an assault upon plaintiff occurred without school intervention.
The assistant principal pleaded 主权豁免权 as to the filed claim of ordinary negligence under the Code Section 8.01-220.1:2, which provides 主权豁免权 to teachers for acts of omission taken in good faith during the course of their supervision, care or discipline of students unless such acts were the result of gross negligence or willfulness conduct. 弗吉尼亚最高法院 in interpreting that statute indicated that since it stated “any teacher”, 法定豁免不适用于校长. 然而, the Court did hold that a principal being in position of authority and performing tasks as the agent of the sovereign in acquired discretion, was covered by limited common law 主权豁免权 and therefore remanded the case for retrial on a gross negligence standard that had been denied by the trial court.
It is evident therefore that whenever governmental entities or their employees are involved in any tort claim, issues of 主权豁免权 arising from common law and any statutory modifications thereto must be researched and reviewed. They will always be an issue raised in the defense of any tort claim asserted involving a governmental entity and/or its employees.
写的 理查德·H. 马修斯.