Personal injury or death by wrongful act; liability of employer to vulnerable victims.
SB894 creates a new civil cause-of-action framework in Virginia for cases involving personal injury or wrongful death caused by an employee’s tortious conduct toward a “vulnerable victim.” The bill allows a finder of fact to determine whether an employer should be held vicariously liable when the employee’s conduct occurred while the employee was reasonably likely to be in contact with the victim, the employer failed to exercise reasonable care to prevent harm or control the employee, and the employer knew or should have known both that it could control the employee and that control was necessary and possible.
The bill defines “vulnerable victim” broadly as a person at a substantial disadvantage relative to an employee because of physical or mental condition or other characteristics, and specifically includes patients of health care providers, persons under disability, residents of assisted living facilities, passengers of common carriers and nonemergency medical transportation carriers, and business invitees of esthetics spas and massage therapy businesses. The plaintiff bears the burden of proof, and the issues are treated as questions of fact subject to available affirmative defenses. The act applies only to causes of action accruing on or after July 1, 2025.
The bill adds Code of Virginia § 8.01-42.6, expanding employer exposure to civil liability in certain assault, abuse, negligence, or wrongful death cases involving employees and vulnerable victims. It does not create criminal penalties, but it changes the standards a court or jury may use to decide whether an employer is vicariously liable for an employee’s tortious conduct, particularly in caregiving, transportation, assisted living, and personal-services settings. The statute applies prospectively only to claims accruing on or after July 1, 2025.
The bill appears to have received mixed but ultimately sufficient support, passing the Senate and House with notable opposition in each chamber. Early committee and floor votes show substantial majority support, but the final House passage included a significant minority of no votes, and the Senate later rejected the Governor’s recommendation by a wide margin, suggesting lawmakers were willing to stand behind the enacted version. Overall, the legislative record indicates concern about protecting vulnerable people, balanced against reservations about expanding employer liability.
The main point of contention is the expansion of employer vicarious liability and the breadth of the term “vulnerable victim.” Supporters likely view the bill as a targeted protection for patients, assisted living residents, disabled persons, and customers in settings where they depend on employees for safety. Opponents appear to have been concerned that the bill could broaden tort exposure for employers, create litigation risk, and impose liability based on fact-intensive standards about foreseeability, control, and reasonable care. The Governor’s recommendation was rejected, indicating disagreement over the final policy approach or any proposed narrowing changes.