§ 8.01-44.1.Immunity from civil liability of members of certain committees, etc.
Chapter 3. Actions · Article 3. Injury to Person or Property · Last amended 1992 · Last verified July 16, 2026
Full Text of § 8.01-44.1
Plain-English Summary
Every member of a committee, board, group, commission, or other entity established under federal or state law or regulation to authorize, review, evaluate, or make recommendations on programs or research protocols conducted under the supervision of hospital or higher-education faculty or staff — including the design or conduct of experiments involving human subjects — is immune from civil liability for any act, decision, omission, or utterance made in performance of duties as a committee member.
That immunity has two exceptions: it does not cover an act, decision, omission, or utterance done in bad faith or with malicious intent, and it does not cover a member who, in authorizing a program or protocol, knows or reasonably should know that the program or protocol is being or will be conducted in violation of Chapter 5.1 of Title 32.1, Virginia’s human-research-protection provisions. Even where the immunity applies, it never extends to persons engaged in conducting the programs or research protocols — only to the oversight committee’s own members.
Frequently Asked Questions
What kind of committee does this immunity apply to?
A committee, board, group, commission, or other entity established under federal or state law or regulation that authorizes, reviews, evaluates, or recommends on programs or research protocols, including human-subjects research, conducted under hospital or higher-education faculty or staff supervision.
Does this immunity protect the researchers conducting the study?
No. The immunity created by this section does not apply to persons engaged in the conduct of the programs or research protocols.
When does a committee member lose this immunity?
When the act, decision, omission, or utterance was done in bad faith or with malicious intent, or when the member knew or reasonably should have known that a program or protocol being authorized violated Chapter 5.1 of Title 32.1.
What does it mean for a member to have “known or should have known” a protocol violated the law?
The exception applies specifically when a member, in acting to authorize the nature, conduct, activities, or procedures of a program or protocol, knew or reasonably should have known it was being or would be conducted in violation of Virginia’s human-research-protection provisions in Chapter 5.1 of Title 32.1.
Does this immunity cover only decisions, or also things a member says while serving on the committee?
It covers any act, decision, omission, or utterance made in performance of the member’s duties on the committee.
Amendment History
1980, c. 479; 1981, c. 40; 1992, c. 603.