Subject to the provisions of this article, the Commonwealth shall be liable for claims for money only accruing on or after July 1, 1982, and any transportation district shall be liable for claims for money only accruing on or after July 1, 1986, on account of damage to or loss of property or personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee while acting within the scope of his employment under circumstances where the Commonwealth or transportation district, if a private person, would be liable to the claimant for such damage, loss, injury or death. However, except to the extent that a transportation district contracts to do so pursuant to § 33.2-1919, neither the Commonwealth nor any transportation district shall be liable for interest prior to judgment or for punitive damages. The amount recoverable by any claimant shall not exceed (i) $25,000 for causes of action accruing prior to July 1, 1988, $75,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1988, or $100,000 for causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 1993, or (ii) the maximum limits of any liability policy maintained to insure against such negligence or other tort, if such policy is in force at the time of the act or omission complained of, whichever is greater, exclusive of interest and costs.
Notwithstanding any provision hereof, the individual immunity of judges, the Attorney General, attorneys for the Commonwealth, and other public officers, their agents and employees from tort claims for damages is hereby preserved to the extent and degree that such persons presently are immunized. Any recovery based on the following claims are hereby excluded from the provisions of this article:
1. Any claim against the Commonwealth based upon an act or omission which occurred prior to July 1, 1982.
1a. Any claim against a transportation district based upon an act or omission which occurred prior to July 1, 1986.
2. Any claim based upon an act or omission of the General Assembly or district commission of any transportation district, or any member or staff thereof acting in his official capacity, or to the legislative function of any agency subject to the provisions of this article.
3. Any claim based upon an act or omission of any court of the Commonwealth, or any member thereof acting in his official capacity, or to the judicial functions of any agency subject to the provisions of this article.
4. Any claim based upon an act or omission of an officer, agent or employee of any agency of government in the execution of a lawful order of any court.
5. Any claim arising in connection with the assessment or collection of taxes.
6. Any claim arising out of the institution or prosecution of any judicial or administrative proceeding, even if without probable cause.
7. Any claim by an inmate of a state correctional facility, as defined in § 53.1-1, unless the claimant verifies under oath, by affidavit, that he has exhausted his remedies under the adult institutional inmate grievance procedures promulgated by the Department of Corrections. The time for filing the notice of tort claim shall be tolled during the pendency of the grievance procedure.
Nothing contained herein shall operate to reduce or limit the extent to which the Commonwealth or any transportation district, agency or employee was deemed liable for negligence as of July 1, 1982, nor shall any provision of this article be applicable to any county, city or town in the Commonwealth or be so construed as to remove or in any way diminish the sovereign immunity of any county, city or town in the Commonwealth.
1981, c. 449; 1982, c. 397; 1986, c. 584; 1988, c. 884; 1989, c. 446; 1993, c. 481; 1998, cc. 203, 820; 2007, c. 250.
Notes of Decisions
Cited in
145
cases (
43 in the last 5 years), 1982–2026 · leading case:
Patten v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 517 (Va. 2001).
Patten v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 517 (Va. 2001).
· cites it 24× “The Commonwealth relied on Code § 8.01-195.3(4), which provides an exception to the Commonwealth’s limited waiver of immunity for tort claims “based upon an act or omission of an officer, agent or employee of any agency of government in the execution of a lawful order of any…”
Whitley v. Commonwealth, 538 S.E.2d 296 (Va. 2000).
· cites it 16× “” Code § 8.01-195.3. According to the motion for judgment, Jenkins was a mentally impaired person with an epileptic condition who required constant medication to prevent the onset of seizures.”
Torloni v. Com., 645 S.E.2d 487 (Va. 2007).
· cites it 26× “The trial court highlighted the following facts in reaching its decision: the Commonwealth's maximum liability under Code § 8.01-195.3 was $100,000; Torloni could not recover more than $100,000 from the Commonwealth under the reduced ad damnum; Torloni had already recovered…”
Baumgardner v. Sw. Virginia Mental Health Inst., 442 S.E.2d 400 (Va. 1994).
· cites it 16× “Baumgardner alleged that the defendants were liable pursuant to Code § 8.01-195.3, which imposes limited liability upon the Commonwealth for “personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee while acting within the scope of his…”
Messina v. Burden, 321 S.E.2d 657 (Va. 1984).
· cites it 4× “Code § 8.01-195.3 (emphasis added). Thus, the complexity that exists in the law of sovereign immunity cannot be eliminated by the simple expedient of doing away with the doctrine by judicial fiat.”
William Battle, III v. J. Ledford, 912 F.3d 708 (4th Cir. 2019).
· cites it 2× “" Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3 (7). The VTCA does not save Battle's claims for two reasons.”
Rector & Visitors of the Univ. v. Carter, 591 S.E.2d 76 (Va. 2004).
· cites it 4× “Code § 8.01-195.3 (emphasis added). UVA argues that the Act provides an express, limited waiver only of the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity but does not disturb the sovereign immunity of the Commonwealth’s agencies.”
West Virginia Reg'l Jail & Corr. Facility Auth. v. A.B., 766 S.E.2d 751 (W. Va. 2014).
· cites it 2× “Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3 (2007). Moreover, Heckenlaible is a case from the Eastern District of Virginia and is a minority position within Virginia federal districts (including its own district) and the 4th Circuit.”
AGCS Marine Ins. Co. v. Arlington Cnty., 800 S.E.2d 159 (Va. 2017).
· cites it 2× “The General Assembly has also addressed the scope of sovereign immunity in a host of other claim-specific statutes, generally granting and maintaining sovereign immunity for the Commonwealth and its entities except for bad-faith conduct, gross negligence, or willful misconduct,…”
Lohr v. Larsen, 431 S.E.2d 642 (Va. 1993).
· cites it 4× “NOTES [1] In 1981, the Commonwealth abrogated its own immunity from tort liability for acts of simple negligence performed by its employees acting within the scope of their employment, but specifically preserved the immunities enjoyed by state employees.”
Doe v. Rector & Visitors of George Mason Univ., 132 F. Supp. 3d 712 (E.D. Va. 2015).
· cites it 3× “Although the Virginia Tort Claims Act waives the Commonwealth’s sovereign immunity in limited situations, none of which is present here, the immunity of the Commonwealth’s agencies and those agencies’ agents and employees remains undisturbed.”
Niese v. City of Alexandria, 564 S.E.2d 127 (Va. 2002).
· cites it 2× “; see Code § 8.01-195.3. We agree with the reasoning of the Fourth Circuit and hold that a municipality is immune from liability for intentional torts committed by an employee during the performance of a governmental function.”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3(1) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3(2) — 8 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3(3) — 3 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3(4) — 9 cases
Patten v. Commonwealth, 553 S.E.2d 517 (Va. 2001).
“The Commonwealth relied on Code § 8.01-195.3(4), which provides an exception to the Commonwealth’s limited waiver of immunity for tort claims “based upon an act or omission of an officer, agent or employee of any agency of government in the execution of a lawful order of any…”
Whitley v. Commonwealth, 538 S.E.2d 296 (Va. 2000).
“” Code § 8.01-195.3. According to the motion for judgment, Jenkins was a mentally impaired person with an epileptic condition who required constant medication to prevent the onset of seizures.”
Baumgardner v. Sw. Virginia Mental Health Inst., 442 S.E.2d 400 (Va. 1994).
“Baumgardner alleged that the defendants were liable pursuant to Code § 8.01-195.3, which imposes limited liability upon the Commonwealth for “personal injury or death caused by the negligent or wrongful act or omission of any employee while acting within the scope of his…”
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3(5) — 2 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3(6) — 9 cases
— Va. Code Ann. § 8.01-195.3(7) — 10 cases
Whitley v. Commonwealth, 538 S.E.2d 296 (Va. 2000).
“” Code § 8.01-195.3. According to the motion for judgment, Jenkins was a mentally impaired person with an epileptic condition who required constant medication to prevent the onset of seizures.”
Annotations are extracted automatically from the opinions in the
Syfert caselaw corpus and ranked by authority, recency, and
treatment. Dots show Syfertize treatment of the citing case itself.