Crabbe v. County School Bd. of Northumberland County

• Court: Virginia Supreme Court
• Writing for the Court: Before EGGLESTON; EGGLESTON
• Citation: Crabbe v. County School Bd. of Northumberland County, 209 Va. 356, 164 S.E.2d 639 (1968)
• Decision Date: 06 December 1968
• Parties: , 33 A.L.R.3d 697 Dandridge Cockrell CRABBE v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY and Bobby Lee Albrite.

Page 639

164 S.E.2d 639

209 Va. 356, 33 A.L.R.3d 697

Dandridge Cockrell CRABBE v. COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD OF NORTHUMBERLAND COUNTY and Bobby Lee Albrite.

Supreme Court of Appeals of Virginia.

Dec. 6, 1968.

William B. McLeod, Whitestone (Dunton, McLeod & Simmons, Whitestone, on brief), for plaintiff in error.

Nathan H. Smith, Richmond, Walther B. Fidler, Warsaw (Sands, Anderson, Marks & Clarke, Richmond, Ryland & Fidler, Warsaw, on brief), for defendants in error.

Before EGGLESTON, C.J., and BUCHANAN, SNEAD, CARRICO, GORDON and HARRISON, JJ.

EGGLESTON, Chief Justice.

Dandridge Cockrell Crabbe filed a motion for judgment against the County School Board of Northumberland County and Bobby Lee Albrite to recover damages for personal injuries caused by the alleged negligence of the two defendants. The motion alleged that on February 3, 1965 the plaintiff, who was then a minor but who has subsequently attained the age of twenty-one years, was a student regularly enrolled in the Northumberland High School which was then operated and controlled by the County School Board of Northumberland County; that the defendant Bobby Lee Albrite was then and there employed by the School Board and acting as a teacher in the high school; that in the course of his study as a student or pupil at the school the plaintiff was receiving instruction from Albrite in the use of a power table saw, and that during such instruction the plaintiff's hand was injured.

The motion further alleged that because of the negligence of the School Board the power saw was defective and improperly equipped; that this was known to Albrite, the teacher and employee of the Board, and that Albrite was negligent in permitting the plaintiff to use the defective tool and in failing properly to instruct him in its use. It was also alleged that as a direct and proximate result of such negligence on the part of the defendants the plaintiff's hand was injured.

The defendants filed separate demurrers and special pleas to the motion for judgment. In its special plea the School Board averred that in the operation of the school it was performing a governmental function and was, therefore, immune from liability to the plaintiff for or on account of the matters alleged in the motion.

The defendant Albrite, in his special plea, averred that in the operation of the school the School Board was performing a governmental function and, therefore, was immune from liability to the plaintiff for the matters alleged against it, and that such immunity extended to him, the defendant, as the employee of the School Board.

After argument the lower court entered an order sustaining the demurrers of both defendants and dismissing the suit. From this order the plaintiff has appealed.

First, as to the liability of the School Board: In Kellam v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, 202 Va. 252, 117 S.E.2d 96 (1960), we held that in the operation and maintenance of a school building a school board acts as a governmental agency or arm of the State and is immune from liability for tortious personal injury negligently inflicted. In that case we said that the school board was immune from liability for personal injuries sustained by a patron at a concert given by a lessee of a high school auditorium and caused by the alleged unsafe condition of a passageway in the building.

Upon the same principle of the immunity of a school board as a governmental agency, it is generally held that, in the absence of a statute imposing liability, a school board is not liable for injuries to pupils of public schools sustained by reason of the negligence of the board, or its servants or agents in the performance of their duties. 47 Am.Jur., Schools, § 57, pp. 335--337; 78 C.J.S. Schools and School Districts § 320, p. 1321ff.

Indeed, in the opinion in the Kellam case we noted with approval the holding in Krutili v. Board of Education of Butler District, 99 W.Va. 466, 129 S.E. 486 (1925), that in the operation of a school a school board is performing a governmental function and hence is immune from liability for personal injuries sustained by a pupil and caused by the alleged negligence of an instructor, employed at the school, in the operation of an appliance quite similar to that involved in the present case.

We adhere to the views expressed in Kellam v. School Board of the City of Norfolk, supra, and hold that in the present case, in the absence of a statute waiving its governmental immunity, the defendant School Board is immune from liability for the injuries sustained by the plaintiff by reason of its alleged negligence and that of the instructor, Albrite.

The plaintiff contends that the General Assembly has waived the governmental immunity of the School Board for the tort liability here involved by the enactment of Code §§ 22--284--22--294 (Repl. Vol. 1964), both inclusive. We do not agree.

Section 22--284 provides: 'No county, city or other public school unit * * *, in which any school pupils or personnel are transported at public expense to or from any public...