Virginia Injury Attorney Blog

This week attorney Avery T. “Sandy” Waterman, Jr., Esq. of Williamsburg/Newport News, Virginia, settled another out-of-state vehicle accident case. He negotiated the personal injury claim of a Peninsula resident involved in a Maryland collision. It was the companion claim of a mother whose daughter was victim of the same crash and whose own case was settled last year by Mr. Waterman too.

Modern technology streamlines client involvement and inconvenience, facilitating favorable resolutions of personal injuries occurring out-of-state. Occasionally Mr. Waterman retains co-counsel in the accident locality for his clients when necessary.

On January 14, 2010, the brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns was reconsidered in Circuit Court for Gloucester County, Virginia. Sovereign immunity still was denied the Defendant Assistant Principal.

The Judge reaffirmed his findings that the testimony of Shannon Diaz and other witnesses of Plaintiffs was more persuasive than the testimony of all Defendants; that the act of notifying school security of the reported impending physical attack of Greg Gagnon or otherwise investigating the report of Shannon Diaz omitted by Assistant Principal Burns was a ministerial act; and that the Plaintiffs have made out a sufficient case that Defendant Burns’ act constituted negligence in the non-performance of that ministerial act. The Judge also reaffirmed the admission into evidence of the deposition of a key independent eye witness, Shannon Diaz.

The brain injury case was scheduled for trial by jury on all issues for the week of August 16-20, 2010, at Gloucester Courthouse. Meanwhile the parties resume discovery.

On December 16, 2009, Defendant in the brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns, No. CL08-572 in Gloucester, Virginia, lost the issue of sovereign immunity on its Plea in Bar. The trial judge ruled his findings of “ministerial act” and “simple negligence” were preemptive, not subject to relitgation before a jury; so Defendant has set reconsideration for hearing on January 14, 2010.

In Stanardsville Vol. Fire Co. v. Berry, 229 Va. 578, 587(1985), the Virginia Supreme Court emphasized than an evidentiary hearing on Plea could not be aborted mid-stream and that its finding is “binding and conclusive” on the issue submitted. “In the case of an issue on a plea in equity, not only does either party have the right to a jury trial, but the jury may not be discharged before verdict and its verdict, when returned, is as binding and conclusive upon the factual issue submitted to it as is a jury verdict in an action at law.’ Although Stanardsville focuses on a jury sitting as trier of fact on a Plea, where as in the Gagnon brain injury case the parties elect to have the judge sit as the trier of fact, the judge’s verdict and findings likewise are equally mandated, binding and conclusive.

Cooper Indus., Inc. v. Melendez, 260 Va. 578, 594 (2000) reaffirmed that a “plea in bar is a defensive pleading that reduces the litigation to a single issue,” the findings on which are preemptive for the litigation. In Cooper, defendants interposed a Plea in Bar on statute of repose, the trial court tried the same ore tenus and found plaintiff was not time-barred, id. at 581; which finding was not subject to relitigation before the jury subsequently. Id. at 594-595. “When the trial court hears the evidence ore tenus, its findings are entitled to the weight accorded a jury verdict . . . .” Id. at 595.

“Pleas in bar are also designated peremptory pleas ….”M.J. Pleading §45 at 364 (emphasis added). “A plea in bar is one to the substantial merits of the case….” Id. at 363.

“A plea of sovereign immunity presents distinct issues of fact that, if proved, create a bar to a parties’ alleged right of recovery.” Gambrell v. City of Norfolk, 267 Va. 353, 357 (2004). Under the fourth prong of Virginia’s test for sovereign immunity, the trier is required to make findings whether the Defendant’s act in question was one of “gross negligence” or “simple negligence” and was “ministerial” or involved “judgment and discretion,” which findings were the focus of the Gagnon brain injury case.

Continue reading " Virginia: Pleas in Bar – a Lawyer’s Preemption " »

In the Virginia brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns, No. CL08-572 in Gloucester Circuit Court, the defendant assistant principal alternatively claims sovereign immunity by statute, Va. Code Ann. §8.01-220.1:2(A). Defendant argues that “teachers” in that statute actually means “principals” and “assistant principals” too.

It is hornbook law that statutes in general in derogation of the common law are to be construed narrowly. Further, it also is hornbook law that immunities in particular are disfavored and must be construed narrowly. §8.01-220.1:2(A) is no exception to those tandem rules of construction.

No jurisprudence construes §8.01-220.1:2(A). Tazewell County School Bd. v. Brown, 267 Va. 150 (2004), cited by the brain injury defendant, actually involved Va. Code Ann. §22.1-308, not §8.01-220.1:2(A). His reliance on 16 M.J. Schools §18 at 365 to extend “teachers” to “principals” likewise is misplaced: because Mitchie’s cites Tazewell County as its only Virginia jurisprudence on the definitional point, it necessarily falls with Tazewell County.

Tazewell County does not define “teachers” as including “principals” for all purposes. Tazewell County delineated that under the State Grievance Procedure “teacher” meant only classroom instructors and other non-supervisory personnel (non-principals) under Part II, while “teacher” expressly was broadened to include principals only under Part III. Id. at 159 and 162. Thus, since §8.01-220.1:2(A) does not expressly define “teachers” broadly to cover supervisory personnel like principals, §8.01-222.1:2(A) is analogous to Part II versus Part III of §22.1;308, i.e., covers classroom instructors versus principals too.

Further, other statutes clearly distinguish between “teachers,” on the one hand, and “assistant principals” or “principals,” on the other hand. For example, Va. Code Ann. §22.1-293 applies only to principals and assistant principals, while Va. Code Ann. §22.1-295 is limited to teachers.

In the brain injury case of Gagnon v. Burns, No. CL08-572 in Gloucester, Virginia, plaintiffs introduced as evidence at trail on sovereign immunity the de bene esse deposition of a key witness taken in the initial proceeding that was non-suited. Defendant Burns objected, referring generally to Va. Sup. Ct. Rule 7.

But Rule 4:7(a)(7) provides "when an action in any court of the United States or of this or any other state has been dismissed and another action involving the same subject matter is afterward brought between the same parties or their representatives or successors in interest, all depositions lawfully taken and duly filed in the one action may be used in the other as if originally taken therefore". Moreover, the Virginia Supreme Court has ruled on point in favor of Plaintiffs.

“[P]rior testimony is admissible if the court is satisfied: (1) that the party against whom the evidence is offered, or his privy, was a part to the former trial; (2) that the issue is substantially the same in the two cases; (3) that the witness who proposes to testify to the former evidence is able to state it with satisfactory correctness; and (4) that a sufficient reason is shown why the original witness is not produced.” Gray v. Graham, 231 Va. 1, 5 (1986). The salutary rule of Gray is followed by its progeny. E.g., Morgan v. Commonwealth, 50 Va. App. 369, 376 (2007); Jones v. Commonwealth, 22 Va. App. 46, 51 (1996); and Commonwealth Transp. Comm’r v. Wee Folks Nursery, Inc., 371 Va. Cir. 463, 464 (1996).”