AlBritton v. Commonwealth, 853 S.E.2d 512

DeVinche Javon AlBritton, a Virginia state inmate, sued the Commonwealth under the Virginia Tort Claims Act alleging he fell on prison stairs with "missing edge pieces of concrete" and suffered injuries.
AlBritton filed an affidavit asserting he exhausted DOC administrative remedies; prison records/ombudsman disputed that a Level II appeal was received within the five-day deadline.
The Commonwealth filed a plea in bar (sovereign immunity for failure to exhaust) and moved for summary judgment arguing no genuine dispute on primary negligence and that AlBritton was contributorily negligent.
The circuit court granted both the plea in bar and summary judgment; AlBritton appealed pro se.
The Supreme Court of Virginia held the court erred: the DOC grievance procedure reasonably permits counting timely mailing (placing in prison mail) as an appeal, the record leaves a factual question whether AlBritton mailed the Level II appeal within five days, and genuine disputes exist on both primary and contributory negligence. Case reversed and remanded for factual determination and further proceedings.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether sovereign immunity bars suit because AlBritton failed to exhaust DOC administrative remedies	AlBritton swore he exhausted remedies and mailed a Level II appeal on Dec. 25, 2017; mailing satisfies the five-day appeal rule	DOC/Commonwealth: exhaustion requires DOC receipt/date-stamp within five days; no receipt shown, so immunity applies	Court held grievance procedure reasonably permits timely mailing to constitute an appeal; remanded to decide if AlBritton mailed within five days; if he did, plea in bar should be denied
Whether summary judgment for the Commonwealth was proper on primary negligence	AlBritton: missing edge pieces, photos and inmate affidavits show defect and notice; factual disputes exist on defect, notice, and causation	Commonwealth: no protrusions, defect could not have caused fall; rules may have prohibited use of that stairway	Court held genuine disputes of material fact exist on defect, notice, and causation; summary judgment on primary negligence was improper
Whether summary judgment on contributory negligence was proper	AlBritton denied the asserted facts (unauthorized area, carrying shower bag) and produced contrary evidence	Commonwealth relied on affidavits asserting AlBritton was in unauthorized area and was carrying a bag	Court held the record contains genuine factual disputes; contributory-negligence ground for summary judgment was improper

Pike v. Hagaman, 292 Va. 209 (2016) (confirming sovereign immunity remains in Virginia)
AGCS Marine Ins. v. Arlington Cnty., 293 Va. 469 (2017) (legislature controls the scope of waiver of sovereign immunity)
Woodford v. Ngo, 548 U.S. 81 (2006) (prisoner-exhaustion rules promote administrative resolution and efficiency)
Houston v. Lack, 487 U.S. 266 (1988) (prisoner-mailbox rule: prisoners lose control of filings once delivered to prison authorities)
Fobbs v. Webb Bldg. Ltd. P’ship, 232 Va. 227 (1986) (owner-invitee duty to keep premises reasonably safe and warn of known defects)
Grim v. Rahe, Inc., 246 Va. 239 (1993) (plaintiff must show actual or constructive notice to prove premises liability)
Williamsburg Shop, Inc. v. Weeks, 201 Va. 244 (1959) (contextual consideration of absence of anti-slip treads; not a blanket rule precluding liability)