Davis v. Bryson
| Decision Date | 07 November 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 5:17-cv-60 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Western District of Virginia |
| Parties | ROBERT DALE DAVIS, Plaintiff, v. JOSHUA DAVID BRYSON, et al., Defendants. |
MEMORANDUM OPINION
This case is about a car wreck involving a pickup truck and an ambulance. Presently before the court is a motion to dismiss filed by defendants Joshua Bryson, Gore Volunteer Fire Company, and Frederick County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association. ECF Nos. 3, 21.1 The court addressed the motion to dismiss at a hearing on October 18, 2017. For the reasons below, the motion will be denied as it relates to the negligence and gross negligence claims and granted as regards the negligent training and malicious prosecution claims.
The complaint alleges the following facts. On June 16, 2015, Plaintiff Robert Davis drove his truck westbound on Route 50 in Frederick County, Virginia. Davis was in the right lane as he approached Gore Volunteer Fire Company's station, which is located on the right side of the highway. Bryson was driving an ambulance as he exited the Fire Company'sgarage and moved toward Route 50. Bryson, a volunteer with the Fire Company, was accompanied by two others in the ambulance, named as John Doe 1 and John Doe 2 in the complaint. The ambulance's lights and siren were not activated as it neared the highway.
As Davis drove closer to the fire station, Bryson "suddenly, without warning, and at the last moment; accelerated directly into [Davis'] lane of travel." Compl. ¶ 13. "With no time to react, [Davis] slammed on the brakes in an unsuccessful attempt to avoid hitting the ambulance." Compl. ¶ 14. Davis' vehicle struck the left side of the ambulance, injuring Davis and damaging his pickup. According to the complaint, Bryson could see Davis approaching for at least 500 feet prior to the accident. One of several witnesses stated that the wreck "happened so fast [Davis'] truck had nowhere to go." Compl. ¶ 20.
The complaint further alleges that Bryson was not responding to a fire emergency at the time of the accident. The complaint, however, leaves open the possibility that Bryson was responding to a medical emergency, rather than a fire emergency. See Compl. ¶ 16. Nevertheless, Davis unequivocally alleges that Bryson's ambulance did not have its lights or siren activated at any time prior to impact.
A moment after the wreck, a Fire Company Captain or Lieutenant (John Doe 3), came out of the fire station yelling, Compl. ¶ 25. Bryson complied and activated the ambulance's warning signals. A Virginia State Police officer arrived at the scene to investigate the wreck and asked Bryson, "You had your lights on, didn't you?," to which Bryson responded, "Yeah." Compl. ¶ 28. As Davis puts it, Bryson recognized he was at fault, so he "maliciously lied to the State Police in a feeble attempt toescape blame." Compl. ¶ 29. Based on Bryson's false statement, the officer charged Davis with reckless driving in violation of Virginia Code § 46.2-853.
Davis proceeded to trial in Frederick County District Court on the reckless driving charge. During the trial, Bryson testified that the ambulance had its lights and siren on before entering the road. The Frederick County District Court acquitted Davis of reckless driving but found him guilty of improper driving in violation of Virginia Code § 46.2-869. Davis appealed for de novo review before the Frederick County Circuit Court. At that trial, Bryson repeated his testimony that the ambulance's lights and siren were on prior to the accident. Other witnesses, however, offered testimony contradictory to Bryson's. The Frederick County Circuit Court found Davis not guilty of improper driving, leaving Davis with no conviction related to the accident.
On June 13, 2017, Davis filed this lawsuit. He names Bryson, Gore Volunteer Fire Company (the "Fire Company"), the Frederick County Volunteer Fire and Rescue Association (the "Fire & Rescue Association"), John Does 1-3, and Hartford Casualty Insurance Company as defendants. The complaint includes seven counts:
Bryson, the Fire Company, and the Fire & Rescue Association move to dismiss on grounds of sovereign immunity and failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.2
Rule 12(b)(6) permits a dismissal when a plaintiff fails "to state a claim upon which relief can be granted." To survive a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient "facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." Bell Ad. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). The complaint's "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level." Id. at 555.
A court must construe factual allegations in the nonmoving party's favor and will treat them as true, but is "not so bound with respect to [the complaint's] legal conclusions." Dist. 28, United Mine Workers, Inc. v. Wellmore Coal Corp., 609 F.2d 1083, 1085-86 (4th Cir. 1979). Indeed, a court will accept neither "legal conclusions drawn from the facts" nor "unwarranted inferences, unreasonable conclusions, or arguments." E. Shore Mkts., Inc. v. J.D. Assocs. Ltd. P'ship, 213 F.3d 175, 180 (4th Cir. 2000). Further, "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009). Only after a claim is stated adequately may it then "be supported by showing any set of facts consistent with the allegations in the complaint." Twombly, 550 U.S. at 546.
Counts One and Four allege gross negligence against Bryson and the Fire Company. Defendants argue that the complaint fails to allege gross negligence as a matter of law. In Virginia, "gross negligence is a degree of negligence showing indifference to another and an utter disregard of prudence that amounts to a complete neglect of the safety of such other person." Elliott v. Carter, 292 Va. 618, 622, 791 S.E.2d 730, 732 (2016) (cleaned up).3 "Ordinarily, the question whether gross negligence has been established is a matter of fact to be decided by a jury." Elliott, 292 Va. at 622, 791 S.E.2d at 732.
Defendants argue that a simple car wreck, such as the one alleged in the complaint, cannot amount to gross negligence. They rely on two Virginia Supreme Court cases in which the court vacated jury findings of gross negligence as a matter of law: Finney v. Finney, 203 Va. 530, 125 S.E.2d 191 (1962), and Laster v. Tatum, 206 Va. 804, 146 S.E.2d 231 (1966). In Finney, the Virginia Supreme Court distinguished negligent driving from grossly negligent driving:
The failure to be alert and observant and to operate an automobile skillfully and at low speed under all conditions may in some instances amount to lack of ordinary care; but such lack of attention and diligence, or mere inadvertence, does not amount to wanton or reckless conduct, or constitute culpable gross negligence for which defendant would be responsible.
203 Va. at 533, 125 S.E.2d at 193. In Laster, the Virginia Supreme Court held that 206 Va. at 808, 146 S.E.2d at 234.
The court then determined that "the evidence in this case was insufficient as a matter of law to show Burke's gross negligence." Id. Defendants argue that the facts pled in the complaint describe, at most, negligent conduct, and in light of Finney and Laster, Davis' gross negligence claims should be dismissed.
As Davis notes in response, Finney and Laster were decided after trial when a full record was available to assess the facts. The court agrees with Davis: the procedural posture of this case renders Finney and Laster inapposite here. The inquiry on a motion to dismiss is one of plausibility and Davis has satisfied that burden. The complaint states that "Bryson suddenly, without warning, and at the last moment, accelerated directly into Plaintiff's lane of travel" and caused the wreck. This conduct plausibly shows an "utter disregard of prudence that amounts to a complete neglect of the safety" of Davis. Elliott, 292 Va. at 622, 791 S.E.2d at 732. Therefore, the court will not dismiss Counts One and Four. Cf. Adams v. Naphcare, Inc., 246 F. Supp. 3d 1128 (E.D. Va. 2017) () (cleaned up).
Counts Two and Five allege negligence against Bryson and the Fire Company. Defendants seek dismissal of these counts on sovereign immunity grounds.4 To receive sovereign immunity, the Fire Company must show (a) that it was an instrumentality of Frederick County, and (b) that the accident occurred incident to the provision of emergencyservices. Specifically, the Virginia Code states that "emergency medical service agencies" are "exempt from suit for damages done incident to providing emergency medical services to the county, city, or town." Va. Code Ann. §§ 32.1-111.4:3(B), 32.1-111.4:6(B).5 Davis contends that no facts alleged in the complaint indicate that Bryson was operating the ambulance "incident to providing" emergency services at the time of the accident.
In examining a similar statute applicable to fire departments, see Virginia Code § 27-6.02(B),6 the Virginia Supreme Court has...
To continue reading
Request your trial