93 Va. Cir. 344
Roanoke County Cir. Ct.2016Background
- Plaintiff (resident of Warren County) worked as a roofer/foreman for Thomas Hensley / Hensley Remodeling and was injured on June 21, 2014 when a nail gun discharged into his wrist.
- Plaintiff sued under Va. Code § 65.2-805(A), alleging Defendants failed to carry required workers’ compensation insurance and bringing a common-law negligence claim.
- Plaintiff contends § 65.2-805(A) makes uninsured employers strictly liable in a civil suit and thus no prima facie negligence pleading is required.
- Defendants demurred, arguing the complaint fails to plead breach and proximate causation and that § 65.2-805(A) does not eliminate the employee’s burden to plead negligence.
- Court assumed, for demurrer purposes only, that the Act applied (i.e., employer status and insurance obligation), but found the complaint legally deficient for failure to plead a prima facie negligence case.
- Court sustained the demurrer, granted leave to re-plead, and held § 65.2-805(A) does not dispense with the employee’s obligation to plead negligence elements.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether § 65.2-805(A) imposes strict liability on uninsured employers in a civil suit | Hensley: statute’s "shall... be liable" language creates liability without need to plead negligence | Hensley: statute does not eliminate plaintiff’s duty to plead and prove prima facie negligence; only bars three defenses | Court: § 65.2-805(A) does not create strict liability; plaintiff must plead a prima facie negligence case |
| Whether plaintiff’s complaint sufficiently pleaded negligence (duty, breach, causation, damages) | Hensley: allegation of injury while working suffices under § 65.2-805(A) | Hensley: complaint lacks factual allegations establishing breach and proximate cause | Court: complaint insufficient; fails to plead breach and proximate causation; demurrer sustained |
| Whether statutory text barring three defenses implies elimination of all defenses | Hensley: legislative intent favors employees and penal nature supports broad liability | Hensley: specific prohibition of three defenses implies other defenses remain available; statute not superfluous if not read narrowly | Court: specific listing shows legislature did not intend to eliminate all defenses; reading statute as strict liability would render the list meaningless |
| Whether precedent (Wade) controls to find liability as matter of law | Hensley: Wade interpreted § 65.2-805(A) to establish liability and supports plaintiff | Hensley: Wade was decided on the merits where negligence was pleaded; different procedural posture here | Court: Wade not controlling because the complaint here failed to plead negligence; Wade involved a fully pled negligence claim |
Key Cases Cited
- Virginia Used Auto Parts, Inc. v. Robertson, 212 Va. 100 (penal nature of § 65.2-805 and liberal construction in favor of employee)
- Delp v. Berry, 213 Va. 786 (an employee may pursue alternative remedy if one avenue does not provide full recovery)
- Glazebrook v. Board of Supervisors, 266 Va. 550 (demurrer standard: admit facts alleged and reasonable inferences; not conclusions of law)
- Friends of the Rappahannock v. Caroline Cnty. Bd. of Supervisors, 286 Va. 38 (at demurrer stage court tests sufficiency of factual allegations to state a cause of action)