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.
20
3. Count Six – Negligence
As above, Defendant Gayle seeks dismissal of Count Six,
alleging negligence, based on Plaintiff‘s failure to assert that
Gayle participated in her arrest. Defendant Briggs seeks
dismissal of such count contending that he is shiel ded by
sovereign immunity for ordinary negligence, and tha t Plaintiff
fails to allege sufficient facts to state a claim f or gross
negligence.
It is well- established that a city‘s immunity from state -
law tort claims extends to claims against police of ficers for
ordinary negligence occurring during the arrest of a suspect.
See Savage, 754 F. Supp. 2d at 817 (indicating that , in
Virginia, law enforcement officers are immune from liability for
ordinary negligence for acts committed while exerci sing judgment
in the performance of essential police functions); Glasco, 249
Va. at 64-65, 452 S.E.2d at 856 (finding a defendan t deputy
sheriff immune from a claim of ordinary negligence because the
facts surrounding the shooting of a suspect demonst rated that
the defendant ―was engaged in an essential governmental function
involving the exer cise of discretion and judgment‖). Here,
however, Plaintiff appears to argue in her rebuttal briefs that
the Complaint alleges both ordinary and gross negli gence, Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)