You are on page 1of 6

Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY

Randy Boschetti
Artifact #3-Tort and Liability
EDU 210-1001
October 15, 2015

TORT AND LIABILITY

Tort and Liability


Ray Knight was a middle school student who was suspended for three days because of
unexcused absences. The school district procedure required both a phone call and written letter to
Knights parents. There was no call home nor were the parents notified by mail. Knight received
a notice of his suspension and threw it away. Knights parents were unaware of his suspension
altogether. On the first day of Knights suspension, he was accidentally shot while making his
way to a friends house.
Ray Knights parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against schools
officials. The school did not follow mandatory procedure at all. A student who is suspended
requires a telephone notification and a written notice sent to the parents, which neither occurred
during this process. Since the parents of this student were not informed at all, they can pursue
legal action. The text describes, Many liability cases focus on the consequences of criminal
activity (105). An unnamed case in the text describes a middle school student who was sexually
assaulted after leaving campus during school hours. The students parents proclaimed negligence
against the school and alleged that it was a breach of duty upon the school district to let the
student leave. The school was responsible for the supervision of the student. It was a violation of
the school to allow her to leave, especially because the policy states only the principal and vice
principal have the authority to release students early. The court ruled that the school was liable
for the students injury because there was a breach of duty for the care of the student. Ray
Knights case has similar actions. His school was liable for not notifying his parents of the
suspension, which resulted in an injury. If Knights parents knew of this suspension, he could
have been kept in the house and not been shot. This would be a case of liability because the

TORT AND LIABILITY

school was liable for notifying his parents, which they failed to do. Knights parents should
pursue legal action for the injury of their son.
Another similar case in the text describes a student causing a multiple car accident that
injured a few motorists while on his way back to school after leaving campus (114). Zachary
Thomason of Westview High School left campus to get lunch and caused a traffic collision while
driving back to school. Motorists who were injured in the accident filed a negligence lawsuit
against Thomason and the school claiming, by virtue of allowing students to leave campus for
lunch, should have forseen that given the limited time allotted for lunch students would speed
and had a duty to protect the public from negligent driving of students (114). Thomasons
leaving campus was a violation of school policy which required parental permission before he
could sign out. There was no permission and the school is negligent for allowing him to leave
illegally. The school is liable for the accident. The school is also liable for Ray Knights injury.
The school failed to provide notice to his parents and in the aftermath resulted in an injury. It was
negligent of the school to not inform Knights parents. If his parents were informed, the shooting
could have been prevented. Knight may have stayed home for the result of his suspension and
not been injured. With knowledge to his parents, they may have chosen to keep Ray from leaving
the house whatsoever.
On the other hand, Ray Knights parents do not have defensible grounds to press charges
against the school district. The school is not responsible for Knights injury. Whether or not his
parents were informed, Knight made the choice to go to his friends house. He was shot on the
way there, the school could not have prevented this injury. Knight also made the choice to throw
away his note detailing his suspension. In Joseph J. v. Pleasantville, New Jersey, a third grade
student was struck by a car after school hours. This case describes it was a half day at school and

TORT AND LIABILITY

normally the parents of the student would meet their child after school hours to walk them home.
The school sent out calendars labeling half days but the student never showed his parents,
therefore, they were unaware of the half day and did not know to pick him up early. On the half
day when the child was hit by the car, the childs older brother went to meet him after school like
normal but the child was not there. Since the child was injured, the parents sued the district for
not looking out for the childs safety. The court ruled that the school was not liable for off
campus injuries. The child was supposed to notify his father of the half day but failed to do so
and in result was injured. Ray Knight was supposed to notify his parents with the note as well.
He threw the note away leaving his parents clueless of the suspension. The school is not liable
for Knights activities off campus, therefore his parents do not have defensible grounds against
the school. Whether or not Knights parents knew of his suspension, Knight decided to go to a
friends house and unfortunately was shot.
In another situation, a school is not found liable for student injury. In an unnamed case, a
student was arrested for assaulting and injuring a classmate at Chaminal High School. A varsity
football player struck a classmate in the face over the affections of a girl. The student was
arrested. The parents of students sued the school for negligence and not watching over the
students believing they could have prevented this altercation and the arrest of their child. The
school argued that neither student had a violent history and that it was not a foreseeable event.
They also proved they had normal supervision of an area just like any high school and also that
the student punched his classmate without prior altercation. The court ruled that the school had a
proper supervision over the students and since neither student was known for violence, it was not
a foreseeable event. It was concluded that the school was not reliable for students criminal act.
Although Ray Knight did not perform criminal acts, his injury was not foreseeable. The school

TORT AND LIABILITY

could not have prevented the shooting. They had no knowledge that Knight was going to be shot.
It was a random occurrence. The school cannot be liable, therefore Knights parents do not have
defensible grounds.
Based on all of my findings, I do not believe Knights parents have defensible grounds to
pursue liability charges against the school. The school did fail to communicate to the parents
properly, but the shooting and his suspension are not relatable. If his parents were even to receive
the notice, they could have kept Ray home and punished him, but still Ray could have left the
house to see his friend without his parents knowledge and still could have been shot. I criticize
the school for not following procedure. However, Ray could still have been injured. It is difficult
to decide because we do not know how Knights parents would have dealt with the suspension. I
also believe since the incident was off campus, the school is not liable. I wish we had more
information on the event. My decision could change based on the time frame of when Ray left
for his friends house. Did he leave on his way to school? For example, does his friend give him
a ride or do they walk together? If the parents knew of the suspension, they would have kept him
home. I do not know when he actually left. If it was in the middle of the day, then sure it is not
liable towards the school. I would need more information detailing everything to confirm my
decision.

TORT AND LIABILITY

References
Calisi, A. Liability and Injury Compensation for Accidents at School. Retrieved from
http://m.injuryclaimcoach.com/?url=http://www.injuryclaimcoach.com/accident-atschool.html
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.
Zirkel, P. (2007, February 1). Liability for Off-Campus Non-school Activity. Retrieved from
https://www.naesp.org/resources/2/Principal/2007/J-Fp10.pdf

You might also like