Willie Williams v. Government of the Virgin Island, ST-1982-CV-121 (V.I. 1982) [unpublished]
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN WILLIE WILLIAMS Plaintiff CIVIL NO. 121/1982 Vv. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND ELMO ROEBUCK Defendant ROBERT L. KING, Esquire 2E 9th Street Professional Center No. 24 Estate Thomas St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (Attorney for Plaintiff) MARIA TANKENSON HODGE, Esquire P. 0. Box 4511 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (Attorney for Defendant) FEUERZEIG, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (April , 1982) Defendant, Elmo Roebuck, has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, which alleges that while acting within the scope of his employment as a Senator of the Virgin Islands, Roebuck negligently operated a Government vehicle and struck the plaintiff causing injury. Roebuck claims that the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act, 33 V.I.C. §3408 et seq, does not waive the immunity of Government employees that was granted by Section 2(b) of the Revised Organic Act of 1954. > Defendant relies on Simon v. Lovgren, 10 V.I. 302 (D.V.I. 1973), and Spisso v. Tonkin, No. 109/1972 (D.V.I. September 7, 1973). …
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://superior.vicourts.org/UserFiles/Servers/Server_12810747/File/Opinions/Archive/Williams%20v.%20GVI%202%20(HLF).pdf
SHA-256 ea3c1bbd4aff76c5b23d998fc29b7d76eca96828b103b3d11b94151afc02e952
Re-using this document
edicts of government — judicial opinions are not copyrightable by anyone. NOT 17 USC 105 (territorial court, not federal) and NOT 'rights unstated'.
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-ea3c1bbd4aff
Document text
IN THE TERRITORIAL COURT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS DIVISION OF ST. THOMAS AND ST. JOHN WILLIE WILLIAMS Plaintiff CIVIL NO. 121/1982 Vv. GOVERNMENT OF THE VIRGIN ISLANDS AND ELMO ROEBUCK Defendant ROBERT L. KING, Esquire 2E 9th Street Professional Center No. 24 Estate Thomas St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (Attorney for Plaintiff) MARIA TANKENSON HODGE, Esquire P. 0. Box 4511 St. Thomas, Virgin Islands 00801 (Attorney for Defendant) FEUERZEIG, Judge MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER (April , 1982) Defendant, Elmo Roebuck, has filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint, which alleges that while acting within the scope of his employment as a Senator of the Virgin Islands, Roebuck negligently operated a Government vehicle and struck the plaintiff causing injury. Roebuck claims that the Virgin Islands Tort Claims Act, 33 V.I.C. §3408 et seq, does not waive the immunity of Government employees that was granted by Section 2(b) of the Revised Organic Act of 1954. > Defendant relies on Simon v. Lovgren, 10 V.I. 302 (D.V.I. 1973), and Spisso v. Tonkin, No. 109/1972 (D.V.I. September 7, 1973). The defendant is correct that Simon and Spisso dictate that the defendant's motion to dismiss should be granted. The only difficulty with defendant's position is that Spisso and Simon no longer are the law of this jurisdiction. They were overruled, by Mathurin v. Government of the Virgin Islands, 12 V.I. 23, 398 F.Supp. 110 (D.V.I. 1975); Dennis v. College of the Virgin Islands, 12 V.I. 117, 398 F.Supp. 1307 (D.vV.I. 1975), and Kalloo v. Englerth , 433 F.Supp. 504 (D.V.I.) 1970, and were definitely laid to rest by Davis v. Knud Hansen Memorial Hospital, 635 F.2d 179 (3rd Cir. 1980). In Davis the Third Circuit stated: /W/e hold that section 2(b) of the Revised Organic Act does not provide any immunity to Government officers or employees sued in their individual capacities. Id. at 186. ~~ The rejection by Davis of blanket immunity for government employees did not, however, obliterate the common law immunity for government officials who are involved in the exercise of discretionary duties. Id. at 186. There can be no question, though, that defendant as the alleged operator of an automobile is no different then the proverbial sanitation truck driver, who it has been said is not clothed with immunity. Mathurin v. Government of the Virgin Islands, supra, 12 V.I. at 30, 398 F.Supp. at 114, and Kalloo v. Englerth, supra, 433 F.Supp at 512. Accordingly, it is ORDERED that defendant Roebuck's motion to dismiss is denied. DATED: April V4, , 1982 ZL HENRY L. JUDGE