A recent appellate court decision has upheld the dismissal of claims brought by a student’s guardian against several school officials over an incident involving alleged physical harm during student transportation. The ruling addresses questions about the responsibility of school employees to protect students with disabilities and the standards required to establish legal liability.
The appeal was filed by G.H., through his guardian Janet Rance, in the Court of Appeals of Virginia under Record No. 0045-25-1, challenging a prior judgment from the Circuit Court of the City of Virginia Beach that favored defendants Tania Sotomayor, Sean F. Barnes, Chris Sprouse, and Euodias Falcon Knight. The opinion was issued on April 21, 2026.
According to the memorandum opinion authored by Judge Dominique A. Callins, G.H.’s complaint centered on events during the 2019-20 school year when he attended Plan Bee Academy—a school serving special needs students under the Virginia Beach School Board. At that time, Sotomayor served as Director of Compliance and Special Education Services; Barnes was Director of Transportation; Sprouse supervised training for bus drivers and assistants; and Knight oversaw transportation for students with disabilities.
G.H., described as “extremely vulnerable and fragile, physically and mentally,” had multiple diagnosed conditions including attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder and post-traumatic stress disorder. To accommodate his needs, an individualized education program provided him with a bus driver assistant named Adela Lucia Avila. However, G.H.’s complaint alleged that Avila was not informed about his specific conditions nor trained to address his behavioral or emotional challenges.
The incident at issue occurred when G.H., while riding the bus with Avila among other students with disabilities known to require heightened supervision due to behavioral outbursts, began “misbehaving or acting unruly.” According to allegations accepted as true for purposes of review, Avila responded by biting G.H. and striking him on the head.
Initially, G.H. sued Avila directly but later amended his complaint four years after the incident to include Sotomayor, Barnes, Sprouse, and Knight as defendants—collectively referred to as “the Employees.” He claimed they were grossly negligent in their duties and violated his rights under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by failing to provide proper training or information to Avila regarding his vulnerabilities.
The circuit court sustained a demurrer filed by the Employees against both amended complaints—first allowing further amendment before ultimately dismissing G.H.’s second amended complaint (SAC) with prejudice after a hearing. In affirming this outcome on appeal, Judge Callins wrote: “Taking G.H.’s allegations as true, Avila’s actions were not reasonably foreseeable such that liability for gross negligence could attach or the Employees could have ‘disregarded a known or obvious consequence’” of assigning her as assistant.
The opinion outlines that establishing negligence requires showing a duty of care was breached through actions proximately causing injury. While exceptions exist where there is a special relationship between parties or an assumed duty—particularly relevant in cases involving children—the court found no evidence suggesting Avila had any history indicating she would act violently toward students: “Absent allegations of this kind,” wrote Judge Callins, “Avila’s conduct in striking and biting G.H. could not have been reasonably foreseeable.”
On the claim under 42 U.S.C. § 1983—which allows civil recovery for deprivation of constitutional rights—the court noted that liability attaches only if supervisors are shown to have actual or constructive knowledge that subordinates pose an unreasonable risk and respond with deliberate indifference leading directly to harm. Here again, because there were no allegations showing prior warning signs about Avila’s behavior toward children or any actual notice given to her supervisors about such risks, the court concluded: “Without ‘actual notice’ that Avila would assault G.H.…the Employees were not deliberately indifferent.”
In summary judgment language: “For the foregoing reasons,” wrote Judge Callins on behalf of Judges Athey and Friedman concurring in Williamsburg proceedings,“we affirm the circuit court’s judgment.”
Attorneys representing appellant included Kevin E. Martingayle (with Jerrell R. Johnson; Bischoff Martingayle P.C.), while appellees were represented by Melissa Y. York (with Jeremy D. Capps; Brian P. Ettari; Harman Claytor Corrigan & Wellman). The case was heard before Judges Athey, Friedman and Callins under Record No. 0045-25-1.
Source: 0045251_Rance_v_Sotomayor_Opinion_Virginia_Court_of_Appeals.pdf
