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.
2
day, saying he was acting like an “animal” and a “monkey.” The complaint alleged negligence
and gross negligence by the School Board and gross negligence by certain named employees. It
sought compensatory and punitive damages of $15 million.
In response, the School Board filed a plea in bar, asserting that sovereign immunity
required dismissal of the School Board as a party. The circuit court denied the plea in part and
granted it in part. Relying on Code § 22.1-194, the circuit court denied the plea with respect to
Z.M.’s claims of simple and gross negligence against the School Board. The circuit court,
however, granted the plea on the question of punitive damages, holding that sovereign immunity
foreclosed such damages. The School Board filed an interlocutory appeal under Code
§§ 8.01-626 and 8.01-670.2. These statutes allow a party to appeal from a granted or denied plea
of sovereign immunity. We awarded the School Board an appeal and now reverse.
ANALYSIS
We “review de novo a trial court’s ruling on a plea of sovereign immunity.” Pike v.
Hagaman, 292 Va. 209, 214 (2016).
Alexander Hamilton wrote in Federalist 81 that “[i]t is inherent in the nature of
sovereignty not to be amenable to the suit of an individual without consent.” The ancient
doctrine of sovereign immunity, while often controversial, “is alive and well in Virginia.”
Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 307 (1984). “Absent an express statutory or constitutional
provision waiving sovereign immunity, the Commonwealth and its agencies are immune from
liability for the tortious acts or omissions of their agents and employees.” Rector and Visitors of
the University of Virginia v. Carter, 267 Va. 242, 244 (2004). School boards are covered by
sovereign immunity. Kellam v. School Bd. of the City of Norfolk, 202 Va. 252 (1960). Jump to an indexed page (6 of 6)