The Virginia Supreme Court issued a split decision on sovereign immunity protections for municipal employees, ruling that while the City of Chesapeake retains immunity in a traffic accident lawsuit, the city employee driving the trash truck does not.
In *Ellis v. Jolley* (Va. 2025), the court addressed whether governmental employees benefit from sovereign immunity while driving vehicles in the course of their duties. The case arose when Jason Ellis, a trash truck driver for the City of Chesapeake, proceeded through a stop sign without stopping while driving "normally" on his assigned route, causing a collision with another vehicle driven by Taylor Jolley.
Justice Stephen McCullough, writing for the court, noted that Virginia courts have addressed this issue on multiple occasions. The current case required the court to distinguish between the immunity protections available to the municipality itself versus those available to individual employees.
Ellis operates a commercial trash truck that requires a Commercial Driver's License Class B. His duties involve collecting trash cans from approximately 800 homes, which can amount to over 1,000 cans per route. The driver sits on the right side of the vehicle and uses air brakes, which differ from ordinary vehicle brakes. While moving between collection points, Ellis uses a joystick to operate a mechanical arm that picks up trash cans and dumps them into the truck's hopper.
The case presented a procedural journey through Virginia's court system. Initially, the circuit court concluded that both the City of Chesapeake and Ellis were protected by sovereign immunity, effectively dismissing the lawsuit. However, the Virginia Court of Appeals reversed this decision, holding that sovereign immunity did not bar the action against either the city or the employee.
The Supreme Court of Virginia's decision represents a middle ground between these two positions. The court affirmed the Court of Appeals' determination that Ellis, the individual employee, does not benefit from sovereign immunity protection. However, the court reversed the appeals court's finding regarding the city's liability, holding that the City of Chesapeake itself maintains sovereign immunity protection.
This distinction reflects the complex nature of governmental immunity doctrine in Virginia. While the full reasoning behind the court's split decision is not detailed in the available excerpt, the ruling suggests that individual municipal employees may face personal liability for traffic accidents occurring during their employment, even when performing routine job functions.
The case highlights the challenges faced by municipal employees who operate vehicles as part of their duties. Ellis testified that learning to drive the trash truck was not particularly difficult and that operating it was similar in many ways to driving a car. However, the specialized nature of the work requires specific training and licensing, and employees must exercise judgment in various situations, such as determining whether obstacles prevent safe trash collection.
The decision may have implications for other municipal employees who operate vehicles, including police officers, firefighters, public works employees, and other city workers who drive as part of their job responsibilities. The ruling suggests that while municipalities may retain protection from certain lawsuits, individual employees may be personally exposed to liability for traffic accidents.
For Ellis specifically, the court's decision means he may face personal liability for the collision with Jolley, despite the fact that he was performing his regular job duties at the time of the accident. The ruling indicates that the employee's sovereign immunity defense has been rejected, allowing the lawsuit against him to proceed.
The case also raises questions about the scope of sovereign immunity in Virginia and when government employees can claim protection under this doctrine. The court's willingness to distinguish between municipal liability and individual employee liability suggests a nuanced approach to governmental immunity that considers the specific circumstances of each case.
The Virginia Supreme Court's decision in *Ellis v. Jolley* provides important guidance for municipalities, their employees, and attorneys handling cases involving government workers who operate vehicles. The ruling clarifies that sovereign immunity protections are not automatically extended to individual employees, even when they are performing their assigned duties.
This decision may prompt municipalities to review their insurance policies and risk management procedures for employees who operate vehicles. Cities may need to consider whether additional protections or indemnification provisions are necessary to protect employees from personal liability while performing their job functions.
The case will likely influence future litigation involving municipal employees and vehicle operations, providing precedent for courts to distinguish between institutional and individual immunity protections in similar circumstances.