The motion to dismiss with prejudice the plaintiff’s case against defendants, Fairfax County School Board ("School Board") and Stephen Wareham ("Wareham") has been under advisement by this Court. Having considered the grounds raised in support of the motion, the argument of counsel and the relevant law, the motion as to the School Board is granted and as to Wareham is granted in part.
Plaintiff alleges that she was injured as a result of a slip and fall which occurred in the defendants’ parking lot at West Potomac High School. Plaintiff charges defendants with negligence and for causing her personal injuries arising from the incident.
Wareham is the principal of the High School, but there are no allegations set forth relative to his duties, function, or responsibilities. There is, further, no allegation relative to whether he was acting within the scope of his employment as principal on the day in question.
Under the holding of Kellam v. School Board, 202 Va. 252, 117 S.E.2d 96 (1960), and its progeny, the School Board is a governmental agency and political subdivision
The doctrine of sovereign immunity may also be applied in behalf of an employee of the state or of other governmental entities. Messina v. Burden, 228 Va. 301, 310-312, 321 S.E.2d 657 (1984). I conclude that Wareham works for an immune body and, thus, may be deemed immune if all the applicable criteria are met. Several criteria were set forth in James v. Jane, 221 Va. 43, 267 S.E.2d 108 (1980), and include inter alia the nature and function performed by the employee and whether the act complained of involved the use of judgment and discretion.
Although plaintiff does not set forth allegations defining Wareham’s activities, as a matter of law, a principal is charged with the administration, supervision, operation and management of the school property to which he has been assigned in accordance with the rules and regulations of the school board. § 22.1-293, Code of Virginia, 1950, as amended. In the absence of any allegation to the contrary, it is my opinion that the statutory definition of Wareham’s duties controls and that his duties are supervisory in nature and involve substantial discretionary and managerial functions. Banks v. Sellers, 224 Va. 168, 173 (1982). He is therefore entitled to immunity. id. at 173. Further, plaintiff fails to allege that Wareham acted outside the scope of his employment, an omission which is fatal to her cause of action. Elder v. Holland, 208 Va. 15, 19 (1967); Sayers v. Bullar, 180 Va. 222, 229 (1942).