Running Header: Portfolio 3 Tort and Liability

Coincidences Cost Lives

Madison Smith
Dr. Ce Isbell
College of Southern Nevada: EDU 210-1001
October 2014

Portfolio 3 Tort and Liability

After many unexcused absences, Ray Knight was suspended from middle school. A note
was sent home with Knight, which never reached the parents, and the consequences were deadly.
The school district requires that a phone call be made home to the parents and a written notice
mailed home. Since Knight threw the note, given to him, away his parents were unaware of his
suspension, thinking he got off Scott free Knight visited a friends house during the school day.
He was shot there, while his parents believed he was at school. So, who is to blame?
In Tackett V. Pine Richland School District the parents of Tackett had sued the school
because of a science experiment that went horribly wrong. He had sustained burn marks and they
claimed that the school did not have the proper equipment. The court ruled in favor of Tackett
(Tackett V. Pine Richland School District, 2002). In this case Tackett just sustained some burn
marks, he did not lose his life, and he still won the case. Knights parents lost their child, how
can the school not have some fault? In this case they did not have to proper equipment and in
Knights case they did not take the proper protocol. The school is responsible for its students
from the time the first bell rings to the last at the end of the day. There should be some
consequences on the schools behalf.
In this case a student was accidently injured in the eye when another student (unknown
student) threw a pencil in the hall. In Bonamico V. City Of Middletown, the parents sued the
school for damages to their daughter. The parents then won the court hearing (Bonamico V. City
of Middletown , 1998). The parents of Knight can sue for damages caused to their son because,
again, he should have been under the supervision of the school. Again for minor damages these
parents are getting what they deserve. No amount of money can bring a child back, but at least
there is some justice.

Portfolio 3 Tort and Liability

A high school student, Gebser, had a sexual relationship with a teacher. They were caught
and the teacher was arrested and also terminated, the district had not distributed an official
grievance procedure for lodging sexual harassment complaints or a formal anti-harassment
policy, as required by federal regulations. Petitioners raised a suit claiming damages against
Lago Vista under Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, which means a person cannot,
be subjected to discrimination under any education program or activity receiving Federal
financial assistance 20 U.S.C. 1681(a). In the end the court decided that the school was not
liable, unless a supervisor knew of the abuse (GEBSERET AL . v. LAGO VISTA
INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT, 1998). This became known as the Gebseret Al V. Lago
Vista Independent School District. The school was not at fault for not administering the correct
notice simply because the school was unaware of the situation. The student had not been forced
to have sex with a teacher, it was all willingly. This shows that the court should rule in favor of
the school in the Knight case. Knight had willingly thrown away the note for his parents but the
school had still made an effort to inform the parents. While sad and devastating this supports that
the school is not at fault.
In the case of, Collete v. Tolleson Unified School District. A motorist received injuries,
from an accident, caused by a student who left school, violating the closed-campus policy. This
is what the judge states:
(1) legal relationship between district and its student did not impose a duty upon
the district to control student; (2) district's modified closed-campus policy was not
a duty assumed for the protection of third persons; and (3) district was not liable
to injured motorists based upon student lunch-hour time schedules (Collete v.
Tolleson Unified School District, 2002).

Portfolio 3 Tort and Liability

This case again ruled in favor of the school and supports the favor of the school in the Knight
case. What happened between the motorist and the student was just a coincidence, just like when
Knight was accidently shot. It was Knights choice not to inform his parents and it was his choice
in going to a friends, it was just coincidence, him being in the wrong place at the wrong time.
Even if Knight was killed on school grounds it would not be the schools fault because they were
not the ones holding the gun.
After reviewing these cases; In Tackett V. Pine Richland School District: Bonamico V.
City Of Middletown: Gebseret Al V. Lago Vista Independent School District: and Collete v.
Tolleson Unified School District, I have come to a conclusion that the school should not be liable
for the murder of Ray Knight. In the cases of Gebseret and Tolleson they support the fact that the
school had no control over the matter, yes they could have taken every step they were suppose to,
but every decision counts, which included the decision Knight made of not showing his parents
the note. It is devastating losing a child and, while I do not know what that feels like, I cannot
help but ache for the parents. The parents can only sue for money from the damages, not sue to
blame the school for the murder.

Portfolio 3 Tort and Liability

References
Bonamico V. City of Middletown . (1998, July 28). Retrieved from Pearson :
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814028.cw/index.html

Collete v. Tolleson Unified School District. (2002, September 12). Retrieved from Pearson :
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814028.cw/index.html

GEBSERET AL . v. LAGO VISTA INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT. (1998, March 25).

Retrieved from Find Law: http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?
court=us&vol=524&invol=274

Tackett V. Pine Richland School District. (2002, Februrary 11). Retrieved from Pearson :
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814028.cw/index.html