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.
21
thereby overcoming any sovereign immunity defense. 14 See Colby,
241 Va. at 130, 400 S.E.2d at 187 (explaining that sovereign
immunity shields officers from ordinary negligence, but not from
gross negligence).
Under Virginia law, ―gross negligence‖ refers to th e
―degree of negligence which shows an utter disregar d of prudence
amounting to complete neglect of the safety of anot her.‖
Frazier v. City of Norfolk, 234 Va. 388, 393, 362 S .E.2d 688,
691 (1987). Stated differently, ―Gross negligence amounts to
the absence of slight diligence, or the want of eve n scant
care.‖ Id. It is negligence to such a degree that ―would shock
fair minded men although something less than willfu l
recklessness.‖ Ferguson v. Ferguson, 212 Va. 86, 92, 181 S.E.2d
648, 653 (1971). Because the Court concludes that Gayle and
Briggs effectively assert immunity from ordinary ne gligence, the
Court considers individually whether Plaintiff has stated a
plausible right to relief based on Gayle‘s and Brig gs‘ alleged
gross negligence.
14 The Complaint expressly alleges gross negligence b ased on
Briggs‘ acts and Gayle‘s failure to intervene, but thereafter
references ―wanton, willful and reckless‖ conduct undertaken by
two Police Departments in cities other than Newport News against
an individual not otherwise named in the Complaint. The Court
assumes that such references are the result of an e diting error,
and construes Count Six as attempting to assert tha t Gayle and
Briggs were grossly negligent. Jump to an indexed page (39 of 39)