eNotes: Liability – August 2024 – Virginia

SIGNIFICANT CASE SUMMARIES

Virginia Case Summary

Page v. Portsmouth Redevelopment & Housing Auth.
Virginia Supreme Court
2024 Va. LEXIS 42

Decided: July 3, 2024

Sovereign immunity did not protect Defendant from liability for damage to Plaintiff’s building.

Background

H. Cliff Page filed a lawsuit against the Portsmouth Redevelopment and Housing Authority (“PRHA”), alleging that PRHA negligently demolished a building it owned, which shared a common wall with Page’s building. Page claimed that the demolition caused significant damage to his building, including damage to supporting structures, interior wall surfaces, and the roof, leading to ongoing water damage to the interior floors, ceiling, and personal property within the building. The PRHA responded with a plea in bar, asserting that the demolition was a governmental function protected by sovereign immunity, thus barring Page’s claim. The Circuit Court held a hearing on this plea, during which PRHA introduced evidence that the City of Portsmouth had declared the building a dangerous structure requiring emergency demolition to ensure public safety.

The Circuit Court ruled in favor of PRHA, holding that sovereign immunity barred Page’s claim. On appeal, the Court of Appeals affirmed the Circuit Court’s decision, holding that sovereign immunity did shield PRHA from tort liability under the circumstances of this case. A further appeal was then taken to the Virginia Supreme Court.

Holding

The Virginia Supreme Court viewed PHRA’s demolition as a proprietary function, focusing on the fact that PRHA maintained a dangerously unsafe building for five years. PHRA allowed the uninhabitable building to be used by the public, refused to spend the money necessary to make it safe, and destroyed the building only after the City issued a Notice of Emergency Demolition. The City – not PRHA – was exercising a governmental function by directing PRHA to fix or demolish the building. Acting on its proprietary capacity, PRHA had to obey the City’s Notice of Emergency Demolition, no differently than any other private landlord. PRHA’s obedience was not an exercise of governmental discretion – it was a ministerial legal duty to perform a proprietary function.

Questions about this case can be directed to Sean Pico at (804) 533-5244 or spico@tthlaw.com.