Jackson v. Belcher, 12-0632
| Decision Date | 26 September 2013 |
| Docket Number | No. 12-0632,12-0632 |
| Parties | Jackson v. Belcher |
| Court | West Virginia Supreme Court |
I believe that the majority's opinion makes an overreaching determination that this Court's decision in Pittsburgh Elevator Co. v. West Virginia Board of Regents, 172 W. Va. 743, 310 S.E.2d 675 (1983), serves to obliterate the immunity clearly granted under West Virginia Code § 15-5-11(a). In my view, the majority opinion's construction of the statute violates the most fundamental tenets of statutory construction, fails to make critical distinctions between the various types of immunities, and fails to account for a variety of cases describing the interplay between immunity and insurance coverage. Without question, the majority has crafted its new syllabus point limiting its analysis to the particular statute at issue. However, I fear that dicta contained in the majority's opinion regarding Pittsburgh Elevator may open the door to substantial attack on governmental immunities in West Virginia. For these reasons, I respectfully dissent.
This Court has long recognized that the "cardinal rule of statutory construction is that significance and effect must, if possible, be given to every section,clause, word or part of the statute." Syl. Pt. 3, Meadows v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 207 W.Va. 203, 530 S.E.2d 676 (1999); see also State ex rel. Johnson v. Robinson, 162 W.Va. 579, 582, 251 S.E.2d 505, 508 (1979) (); accord Davis Memorial Hosp. v. West Virginia State Tax Com'r, 222 W.Va. 677, 671 S.E.2d 682 (2008). "It is always presumed that the legislature will not enact a meaningless or useless statute." Syl. Pt. 3, United Steelworkers of America, AFL-CIO, CLC v. Tri-State Greyhound Park, 178 W.Va. 729, 364 S.E.2d 257 (1987) . Courts should favor the plain and obvious meaning of a statute as opposed to a narrow or strained construction. T. Weston, Inc. v. Mineral County, 219 W.Va. 564, 638 S.E.2d 167 (2006) (citing Thompson v. Chesapeake & O. Ry. Co., 76 F. Supp. 304, 307-308 (S.D. W. Va.1948)).
To say that the majority has strained the plain and obvious meaning of West Virginia Code § 15-5-11(a) is an understatement. In its stated attempt to give effect to all parts of the statute, including its final caveat, the majority has stripped the statute of any operational effect. West Virginia Code § 15-5-11(a) provides:
All functions hereunder and all other activities relating to emergency services are hereby declared to be governmental functions. Neither the state nor any political subdivision nor any agency of the state or political subdivision nor, except incases of willful misconduct, any duly qualified emergency service worker complying with or reasonably attempting to comply with this article or any order, rule, regulation or ordinance promulgated pursuant to this article, shall be liable for the death of or injury to any person or for damage to any property as a result of such activity. This section does not affect the right of any person to receive benefits or compensation to which he or she would otherwise be entitled under this article, chapter twenty-three of this code, any Act of Congress or any other law.
(emphasis added). The majority's interpretation of the caveat at the end of § 15-5-11(a)—providing that the immunity clearly granted in the statute does not affect a person's right to other "benefits or compensation" under several specifically identified statutes or "any other law"—effectively subsumes the immunity granted in the first part of the statute. The majority construes "any other law" to include our holding in Pittsburgh Elevator, which makes an exception to sovereign immunity to the extent of insurance coverage. Under the majority's illogical analysis, the exception quite literally devours the rule.
To the extent this case turns on the meaning of "any other law" as utilized in West Virginia Code § 15-5-11 (a), two previously-recognized canons of construction clearly illuminate its meaning. In Davis Memorial Hospital. v. West Virginia State Tax Commissioner, 222 W.Va. 677, 684, 671 S.E.2d 682, 689 (2008), this Court recognized two canons of construction for the interpretation of an undefined term which is one of several enumerated, otherwise clear, terms: "Ejusdem generis is a 'canon of constructionthat when a general word or phrase follows a list of specific persons or things, the general word or phrase will be interpreted to include only persons or things of the same type as those listed.'" (citing Black's Law Dictionary 535 (7th ed.1999)). We further recognized "[n]oscitur a sociis, is a 'canon of construction holding that the meaning of an unclear word or phrase should be determined by the words immediately surrounding it.'" Id. at 684 n.11, 671 S.E.2d at 689 n.11 (citing Black's Law Dictionary 1084 (7th ed.1999)).
To that end, the full context of "any other law" in the applicable statute provides that "[t]his section does not affect the right of any person to receive benefits or compensation to which he or she would otherwise be entitled under this article, chapter twenty-three of this code [§§ 23-1-1 et seq.], any Act of Congress or any other law." First, the use of the very particular terms "benefits or compensation" certainly connotes statutory entitlements or contractually acquired rights, as opposed to "damages." In support of this conclusion, the statute goes on to identify precisely those types of items. Benefits or compensation "under this article" contemplate statutorily-authorized benefits available under the "Homeland Security and Emergency Management" provisions of the West Virginia Code. Benefits or compensation under "chapter twenty-three" expressly refers to workers' compensation benefits. Benefits or compensation under "any Act of Congress" suggests the type of statutorily-authorized funds made available by the Federal government such as FEMA disaster or emergency relief funds. Utilizing the canons ofconstruction previously recognized by this Court, benefits or compensation under "any other law" must necessarily mean any other law which provides for similar statutory or even contractual remuneration. An opinion of this Court which stands for the specific and limited proposition that the State does not enjoy sovereign immunity from suit to the extent of insurance coverage available, bears no similarity to the specific benefits or compensation expressly identified by the Legislature.
All other canons of statutory construction aside, "[t]he primary rule of statutory construction is to ascertain and give effect to the intention of the Legislature." Syl. Pt. 8, Vest v. Cobb, 138 W.Va. 660, 76 S.E.2d 885 (1953); Syl. Pt. 2, Martin v. Hamblet, 230 W.Va. 183, 737 S.E.2d 80 (2012). With particular application to this case, "it is this Court's duty 'to avoid whenever possible a construction of a statute which leads to absurd, inconsistent, unjust or unreasonable results.'" Taylor-Hurley v. Mingo County Bd. of Educ., 209 W.Va. 780, 551 S.E.2d 702 (2001) (citing State v. Kerns, 183 W.Va. 130, 135, 394 S.E.2d 532, 537 (1990)). The majority's interpretation of West Virginia Code § 15-5-11(a) has rendered the immunity plainly articulated by the Legislature wholly without effect. Such an interpretation is, at a minimum, unjust and unreasonable. It is notable that in spite of the majority's stated efforts to avoid "selectively read[ing] a portion of the challenged statutory section and [] disregard[ing] the remainder" it appearsto have done precisely that. Nowhere in its opinion does the majority explain, as a result of its construction of "any other law," how the statute has any residual effect.1
I find it particularly poignant that the majority reaches their conclusion at or around the twelfth anniversary of the September 11th terrorist attacks. Under the majority's analysis, if West Virginia had the misfortune to be subject of a similar attack, the countless fire, police, emergency services, and other state employees who would put themselves in harm's way to render assistance and aid could then find themselves thereafter burdened with lawsuits for damages in connection with the rendering of those services. I am troubled by the notion that an emergency services worker, while in the exercise of vital life-saving and/or other ameliorative aid, might now be forced to consider the liability implications of their actions. Additionally, I would be remiss if I did not note that the subject statute was amended in 2006 to specifically include mine rescue teams as part of those governmental employees entitled to immunity. The purpose of this statute is plain. The Legislature sought to ensure that emergency services workers could function without fear that their instantaneous actions and decisions—which are undertaken for no other purpose than to selflessly render vital emergency service and aidto the citizens of West Virginia—would later be scrutinized under quiet reflection and dissected in the throes of litigation. The Legislature could not have been clearer—the State, its agencies, its political subdivisions, and their emergency service workers "shall [not] be liable for the death of or injury to any person or for damage to any property as a result of such [emergency service-related] activity."
After concluding that "any...
To continue reading
Request your trial