(a) The City should argue that Alton did not abide by the statutory notice requirements, that the City is protected by sovereign immunity, and that Alton assumed the risk when he ventured out during the snowstorm.

The issue is what defenses, if any, does the City have to Alton’s claim.

In Virginia, a city will be protected from tortious claims under the doctrine of sovereign immunity if the injury occured while the city was peforming a governmental function. A city will not be protected by sovereign immunity if it was peforming a proprietary function at the time of the injury. A governmental function is one where the public as a whole benefits. A proprietary function is a function that is typically performed by a private party, such as street sweeping. Whether or not conduct is considered governmental or proprietary will depend on the circumstances. However, the Supreme Court of Virginia has stated that snow plowing and the like will be considered governmental functions during times of a severe snow storm. Additionally, if someone is injured and is planning on suing the locality, the Code requires that the plaintiff notify the city attorney of the details and location of the injury, in writing within six months of the injury. An extension of time will be granted if the injury prevents compliance with the six month timeline.

Here, the facts state that there was a major snowstorm in the City of Petersburg on March 1, 2024. Alton decided to venture into the storm and go to get groceries. After being injured, he was transported on a city ambulance to the hospital but was involved in a car accident on the way. Alston claims that the city was negligent in not maintaining the traffic light at the intersection. However, a court will likely determine that maintaining a traffic light is a government function because it benefits the public as a whole. Additionally, a court will consider the circumstances at large in that there was a major snowstorm and it is normal for the power to malfunction during major snowstorms. Thus, a court will be even more likely to find that such a failure to maintain the traffic light will be protected under sovereign immunity as a governmental function.

Even though Alston’s attorney did not provide notice to City Attorney within the six month required timeline, a court will likely still charge the City with notice because the Fire Chief called the City Attorney and advised him of the incident and provided him with the written accident report just five days after the accident. The facts state that Alston was injured on March 1, 2024 but that his attorney did not send a written letter of notice to the City Attorney until December 1, 2024. This is well beyond the six month required timeline and the City will argue that Altson’s claim should be barred because he was not compliant. However, a court will likely find this unpersuasive because the City did have actual notice a mere five days after the incident. The facts state that the Fire Chief notified the City Attorney five days after the indcident and provided him with a copy of the written accident report that included the location and details of the injury. Thus, the accident report complies with the statutory requirements. Therefore, a court will likely charge the City with notice in the interesets of justice even though Alton did not strictly comply with the statutory requirements.

A plaintiff will be charged with assumption of the risk if he or she decides to act contrary to the reasonable prudent person standard when he or she understands and appreciates the risk at hand.

Here, the City might also try and argue that Alton assumed the risk when he ventured out into the major snowstorm that day. Alton knew it was a major snowstorm but decided to travel to the store anyways. Thus, the City will argue that he should not be permitted to recover based upon such an assumption of the risk.

In conclusion, the City will likely argue that it is protected by sovereign immunity, the statutory notice requirements, and assumption of the risk.

(b) Yes, the City is obligated to allow Alton to review the requested documements even though his attorney has not inititated formal pretrial discovery in connection with his lawsuit.

The issue is whether the City is obligated to allow Alton to review the requested documents even though his attorney has not initiated formal pretrial discovery in connection with his lawsuit.

In Virginia, Virginia residents and Virginia news media outlets are permitted to request documents under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA). As long as the FOIA request does not include one of the numerous protected documents listed under the statute, the request must be answered within five days. The answer must either provide an answer for why the request is denied or provide the requested document. The person requesting the document will be required to pay a nominal printing fee for the printing of the document(s). FOIA is a privilege that is independent of filing a lawsuit. Thus, even if a resident has not filed a lawsuit and has not initiated formal pretrial discovery, the resident will not be barred from making such a request.

Here, Alton has requested to review all documents (including emails) pertaining to safety inspections, maintenance, and repairs of the City’s traffic lights at the intersection where the incident occurred. None of the requsted documents are likely to be protected from disclosure under FOIA. If the emails were sent on city computers or phones, then they will likely be subject to disclosure as well. The fact that Alton’s attorney has not initiated formal pre-trial discovery in connection with his lawsuit will not prevent Alton from making such a FOIA request.

Thus, the City is obligated to allow Alton to review the requested documents even though his attorney has not initiated formal pretrial discovery in connection with his lawsuit.

(a) The City may claim (1) governmental immunity, and (2) late notice.

1. The City may argue that they are not liable for Alton’s injuries because maintaining traffic lights is a governmental function for which they maintain governmental immunity.

In Virginia, cities are immune from tort liability if the injury arose from a governmental function of the city. Governmental functions are those that concern all of the citizens and help the public at large. Governmental functions are as opposed to proprietary functions, for which the city can be held liable. These are when the city is acting more like a private business. Examples of governmental functions are ambulance and fire services, garbage collection, or educational services. Proprietary functions include maintaining streets or providing utilities. If a function is both governmental and proprietary, then it will be considered governmental for immunity purposes and the city will not be liable. Generally, in Virginia, clearing snow has been considered a governmental function as it is an off-shoot of providing emergency services. Additionally, traffic control and maintaining traffic lights has also been considered to be a governmental function.

Here, Alton was injured from slipping on snow, and then further injured when the ambulance got into an accident due to a malfunctioning traffic light. He sued the City specifically for negligence regarding the negligent maintenance of the traffic light. This has generally been considered to be a governmental function, and the City will have a good claim of immunity over the suit. Even if Alton had sued for negligence over the cleaning of the snow or the driving of the ambulance, these would also be considered governmental functions.

Therefore, the City has a good claim to immunity because maintaining traffic lights is a governmental function.

2. The City may argue that Alton sent them notice too late as it was more than six months after the accident.

When a person is suing a municipality for tort liability in Virginia, the proper city official must receive notice within six months of the injury. This notice must include the nature of the injury, including the time and place it occurred. If no notice is given, it is a complete bar to the plaintiff’s suit. Notice does not have to come directly from the plaintiff, however, if the official learns of the accident some other way.

Here, Alton’s attorney did send a letter to the City providing the proper notice of his claim; however, the notice that was sent was in December while the accident was in March. This means that the notice Alton’s attorney provided was more than six months after the accident, and therefore it was too late. This does not bar Alton’s claim, however, because the City Attorney had other notice of the claim on March 15. The Fire Chief talked to Alton’s attorney at the neighborhood association meeting and told him all about the claim, and the Fire Chief then conveyed all of this to the City Attorney. He even sent the attorney the accident report that likely had all the details which are required of a proper notice.

Therefore, despite Alton’s attorney sending the notice too late, the City Attorney had proper notice within six months of the accident and this defense will not succeed.

(b) The City is obligated to allow Alton to review the requested documents under the Virginia Freedom of Information Act.

The Virginia Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) is a statute that allows Virginia residents access to public records held by public bodies. Both “public record” and “public body” are broadly defined in the statute and allow most anything held by the City to be seen at the request of a resident. Public body includes cities, city councils, county boards, and other associations connected to the commonwealth. Public records includes documents pertaining to their work, their meetings, and even includes emails about their jobs. There are certain things excluded from the FOIA, but generally the Act is read generously to allow broad access. Typically, a request must be responded to within five days.

Here, Alton is a citizen of Virginia and has requested public records from a public body. The City itself is a public body whose records are covered by the Act. Additionally, documents pertaining to the City’s obligations, such as maintaining traffic lights, would be public records that fall under the FOIA and are not excluded. Therefore, the City is obligated to allow Alton to review the requested documents despite discovery for the trial not having started yet.