This page uses extracted PDF text. Text can misread numbers, dates or table columns. Check the PDF before quoting or interpreting it. Redacted areas remain redacted.
10
Virginia tort.
Turning to Fox and Morgan, regardless of whether th ey, like
the City, are immune from liability for all state-l aw torts
alleged in the Complaint, 7 Fox and Morgan are not named or
otherwise implicated in Counts Two through Five of the
Complaint. Accordingly, Counts Two through Five ne cessarily
fail to state a claim against Fox or Morgan.
As to the allegations in Count Six, when read in
conjunction with the preceding paragraphs in the Co mplaint,
Count Six appears to allege that Fox and Morgan wer e negligent
for failing to implement training and supervision p rocedures
necessary to ensure that Newport News Police office rs do not use
excessive force during the course of arrests. Howe ver, as
discussed immediately below, sovereign immunity shi elds both Fox
and Morgan from liability as to Count Six because a ll city
employees, regardless of their job title, are immun e from
7 In Pigott v. Ostulano, 74 Va. Cir. 228 (Norfolk, 20 07), the
Circuit Court‘s opinion suggests that a city‘s broa d sovereign
immunity from liability for all state-law torts com mitted by
city police officers may also operate to render hig h-level city
officials immune from liability. Specifically, in Pigott, the
court held that a Police Chief and Captain, ―two princip al
commanding officers of [the C ity‘s] Police Department,‖ were
immune from liability for torts committed by subord inate
officers because ―officials who oversee the operation of [the
City‘s] Police Department are cloaked with the same sovereign
immunity that protects the City .‖ Id. at 230. Here, because
Fox and Morgan are high-ranking supervisory officia ls, Pigott
suggests that both may, like the City, be automatic ally shielded
from liability for all state-law torts allegedly co mmitted by
subordinate police officers. Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)