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.
11
liability for ordinary negligence associated with q ualifying
discretionary decisions. See Messina v. Burden, 22 8 Va. 301,
313-14, 321 S.E.2d 657, 663-64 (1984); James v. Jan e, 221 Va.
43, 53, 282 S.E.2d 864, 869 (1980); Shaffer v. City of Hampton,
Va., 780 F. Supp. 342, 344 (E.D. Va. 1991).
In determining whether ordinary negligence sovereig n
immunity extends to a specified city employee ‘s actions , the
court must consider: ― (1) the nature of the function the
employee performs; ( 2) the extent of the government‘ s interest
and involvement in the function; (3) the degree of control and
direction exercised over the employee by the govern ment; and (4)
whether the act in question involved the exercise o f discretion
and judgment .‖ Colby v. Boyden, 241 Va. 125, 129, 400 S.E.2d
184, 186-87 (1991) (citing Messina, 228 Va. at 313, 321 S.E.2d
at 663). Applying such test, here, Fox‘s and Morgan‘s
involvement in implementing policies, procedures, a nd training
for the City‘s police force satisfies the first two prongs of
the test because high-level oversight of the police force is
clearly a necessary governmental function in which the City, as
well as the Commonwealth, has a vital interest. As to the
second two prongs, Fox‘s and Morgan‘s positions as Chief of
Police and City Manager necessarily ceded to them g reat control,
and their decisions regarding training and supervis ion of
subordinate police officers undeniably involve the exercise of Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)