finding that the intentional torts committed by a correctional officer were “in no way an ‘ordinary and natural incident’ of the duties with which he was charged by the WVRJCFA and in no way furthered the purposes of the WVRJCFA”
How later courts described this case
- finding that the intentional torts committed by a correctional officer were “in no way an ‘ordinary and natural incident’ of the duties with which he was charged by the WVRJCFA and in no way furthered the purposes of the WVRJCFA”
- finding that the state agency was entitled to qualified immunity on a simple negligence claim for failure to reasonably train, supervise, and screen employees, absent a showing that the agency violated a clearly established law
- holding that “general functions [of] a correctional officer . . . are broadly characterized as discretionary, requiring the use of [the officer’s] discretionary judgments and decisions”
- finding that although negligent hiring, training and supervision claims against state agencies involve discretionary functions for immunity purposes, no such 20 limitations apply to claims against political subdivisions
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
BENJAMIN, Justice,
concurring:
(Filed Nov. 18, 2014)
While the result in the majority opinion undoubtedly is less than ideal, I join the majority opinion because I am convinced that the result is compelled by this Court’s application of established government immunity concepts to the specific facts of this case. I write separately to emphasize two points made in the majority opinion.
First, I wish to emphasize the limited nature of the majority opinion. As the opinion makes clear, D.H. voluntarily dismissed all West Virginia Constitutional violations and any Section 1983 claims which left only negligence-based claims for supervision, training, *526 and retention against the WVRJCFA. This Court’s review is limited by the pleadings below.
Second, as noted above, the majority opinion is based on long-standing concepts of government immunity in West Virginia’s jurisprudence. The Legislature and the Governor certainly have the authority to enact a statutory scheme regarding the State’s liability in tort which would mandate a different result in cases like the instant one. I encourage our sister branches to give consideration to such a change.
Thus, having concluded that the majority opinion is faithful to the established law of this Court and West Virginia, I concur.