Melanson v. Com.
| Decision Date | 12 January 2001 |
| Docket Number | Record No. 000497. |
| Citation | 539 S.E.2d 433,261 Va. 178 |
| Court | Virginia Supreme Court |
| Parties | Mona MELANSON v. COMMONWEALTH of Virginia. |
Dale Edwin Sanders (Becker, Hicks, Irving & Hadeed, on brief), Springfield, for appellant.
Kevin O. Barnard, Assistant Attorney General (Mark L. Earley, Attorney General; Judith Williams Jagdmann, Deputy Attorney General; Gregory E. Lucyk, Senior Assistant Attorney General, on brief), for appellee.
Present: All the Justices.
In this appeal, we consider whether mailing a notice of claim by certified mail, return receipt requested, is the exclusive method of filing a notice of claim against the Commonwealth under the Virginia Tort Claims Act ("the Act"). Code §§ 8.01-195.1 through 195.9. Holding that it is, we affirm the trial court's dismissal of the motion for judgment by Mona Melanson ("Melanson") against the Commonwealth.
On September 6, 1996, Melanson was injured as a result of a falling traffic sign allegedly owned and maintained by the Virginia Department of Transportation ("VDOT"). On September 4, 1997, Melanson mailed a letter by certified mail, return receipt requested, to D.B. Smit ("Smit"), Acting Director of the Division of Risk Management of the Commonwealth. The letter described Melanson's injuries and the event that caused them, and requested compensation from the Commonwealth for negligent maintenance of the highway sign. The return receipt from the certified mailing indicated that the letter was received on September 16, 1997, more than one year from the date of her injuries. In addition to mailing the letter to Smit, counsel for Melanson hand-delivered a copy of the letter to the Division of Risk Management on September 5, 1997, within one year from the date of her injuries.
Melanson filed a motion for judgment against the Commonwealth in the Circuit Court for the City of Alexandria under the provisions of the Act, alleging negligence by agents and employees of the Commonwealth. The Commonwealth filed a special plea of sovereign immunity, asserting that Melanson had failed to satisfy the notice requirements of the Act. The trial court granted the Commonwealth's special plea and dismissed Melanson's motion for judgment, finding that she "did not file a notice of her claim against the Commonwealth with the Director of the Division of Risk Management or the Attorney General by certified mail, return receipt requested, within one year after her cause of action accrued to her."
On appeal, Melanson contends that the trial court erred in dismissing her motion for judgment. She asserts that "filing" and "mailing" are separate concepts and that mailing is not the only method of satisfying the filing requirement under Code § 8.01-195.6. Melanson maintains that her notice of claim was timely filed because it was hand-delivered to the Division of Risk Management within the one year period mandated by Code § 8.01-495.6. The Commonwealth argues that mailing is the only method of filing permitted under § 8.01-195.6 and her mailing was not received within one year of the accrual of her cause of action.
In the absence of express statutory or constitutional provisions waiving immunity, the Commonwealth and its agencies are immune from liability for the tortious acts or omissions of their agents and employees. An express but limited waiver of the Commonwealth's immunity from tort claims was provided by the enactment of the Virginia Tort Claims Act in 1981. The Act is in derogation of common law, and, therefore, its limited waiver of immunity must be strictly construed. Baumgardner v. Southwestern Va. Mental Health Inst., 247 Va. 486, 489, 442 S.E.2d 400, 402 (1994).
Code § 8.01-195.6, the Notice of Claim provision of the Act, provides in relevant part:
Because Melanson hand-delivered her notice of claim within the one year period required by the statute but receipt of her notice by "certified mail, return receipt requested" was beyond the one year period, we must decide if the mailing requirement is the exclusive method for giving notice of claim under the Act.
In Halberstam v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 248, 467 S.E.2d 783 (1996), we considered whether a plaintiff complied with the notice requirements of the Act. The plaintiff was injured when she fell in a parking lot at George Mason University, a state-supported institution. She forwarded several letters, describing her accident and the extent of her injuries, to...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Newman v. Newman
...472, 476, 587 S.E.2d 567, 569 (2003); Patten v. Commonwealth, 262 Va. 654, 658, 553 S.E.2d 517, 519 (2001); Melanson v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 178, 181, 539 S.E.2d 433, 434 (2001). "Abrogation of the common law requires that the General Assembly plainly manifest an intent to do so." Linhart ......
-
Daily Press, Inc. v. Commonwealth
...of the trial court that is wholly ancillary to, and has no bearing at all on, Callender's conviction. See Melanson v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 178, 183, 539 S.E.2d 433, 435 (2001) ( “ ‘The plain, obvious, and rational meaning of a statute is to be preferred over any curious, narrow, or straine......
-
Moses v. Com.
...as well as its caveat, to be just the kind of "curious, narrow, or strained construction" of a statute, Melanson v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 178, 183, 539 S.E.2d 433, 435 (2001), that we should faithfully Under the majority's interpretation, a man sitting on a boardwalk bench at the beach coul......
-
Xl Specialty Ins. Co. v. Dept. of Transp.
...it must be strictly construed. Billups v. Carter, 268 Va. 701, 708-10, 604 S.E.2d 414, 418-19 (2004); Melanson v. Commonwealth, 261 Va. 178, 182-84, 539 S.E.2d 433, 435 (2001); Halberstam v. Commonwealth, 251 Va. 248, 250-51, 467 S.E.2d 783, 784 (1996); Hicks v. Anderson, 182 Va. 195, 199, ......