Artifact #3: Tort and Liability

Artifact #3
Tort and Liability
Cody Wilcox
10/16/2015
EDU 210 - 1001

Artifacted #3: Tort and Liability

This is the case of an injury suffered to a student while serving a suspension and whether
or not the school officials can be held liable. Ray Knight was suspended by his middle school for
repeated unexcused absences. The school district had a policy which required school officials to
make contact with the suspended students parents by a phone call and a letter mailed to the
family. However, in the case of Ray Knight, the school simply sent the student home with a
notice, rather than mailing it and calling the parents. Knight disposed of the letter without giving
it to his family. It was then, while serving his suspension, Knight was accidentally shot while at
the home of a friend.
There are cases that support the opinion that the school and its officials have a responsibility
to directly communicate with the parents regarding their childs behavior and activity. In Eisel v.
the Board of Education of Montgomery County, the father of a middle school student sued two
school counselors for negligence in failing to inform him of his daughters suicidal thoughts. The
girl, Nicole, had expressed to friends an intent to take her own life. The girls friends in turn
reported her statements to their counselor who met with Nicoles counselor to discuss the matter.
When confronted by her counselor Nicole denied her interest in inflicting serious harm to
herself. As a result, the counselors did not inform Nicoles father of her suicidal thoughts. The
court ruled in favor of the father, claiming that school counselors have a duty to use reasonable
means to attempt to prevent a suicide when they are on notice of a child or adolescent students
suicidal intent. In this case reasonable means would have included communicating with the
parent. Something that school failed to ensure was carried out in the hypothetical case of Ray
Knight.

Artifact #3: Tort and Liability

There are other cases, such as Frederick County School Board v. Hannah, where the school
failed to fulfill its full obligations. In this case two students, John Harris Hannah, Jr. and Barbara
Ruffner, were injured in a school bus accident. The school did in fact acknowledge that their
negligence caused the accident and the subsequent injuries to Hannah and Ruffner; however, the
school board fought to limit damages to $50,000 as to the liability limit. The court ruled against
the school board as the board had failed to obtain a certificate of self-insurance from the
Department of Motor Vehicles. Thus, the school board had failed to meet the requirements of
the liability limit and were responsible to award damages of $74,500 to Hannah and $4,510 to
Ruffner. This relates to the case of Ray Knight as the school had failed to fulfill its full duties in
reporting the suspension of the student to the parents by not calling.
However, there are cases that would lend support to the school officials in the hypothetical
case of Ray Knight. Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District is such a case. In the case,
Zachary Thomason, a student at Westview High School was involved in car accident during
school hours. Westview High School had a modified closed-campus, where sophomore, junior
and senior students with at least 3.0 were granted a lunch pass that would give them permission
to leave campus during their lunch break upon signing in and out. Thomason, who did not have a
pass, snuck off campus with his friends to eat at the mall food court. While speeding and driving
recklessly to get back to campus in time for class, Thomason collided with another vehicle. The
driver that Thomason struck sued the District, claiming it had a responsibility the public from the
negligent driving of students. The court ruled in favor of the District on the claim that the
relationship between the District and the driver that would place duty on the District. The school
district did not put Thomason on the road, they did not provide Thomason with his vehicle, and

Artifact #3: Tort and Liability

had no reason to believe that Thomason, a licensed driver on the road for a personal purpose, was
an incompetent, irresponsible or dangerous driver. Similarly, in the hypothetical case of Ray
Knight, the school officials are not responsible for the actions of the shooter.
Another such case is that of Bonamico v. City of Middletown. In this case, Rosamaria
Bonamico, a student at Woodrow Wilson Middle School sued the school district and Mary Ann
Vinci, a home economics teacher at the school, for an injury to her eye. The injury came about as
Asa Black, a student in Ms. Vincis home economics class pocketed beans that he was supposed
to return after the class bean bag project. After leaving class Black threw the bean at Bonamico
in the hallway. Woodrow Wilson Middle School held a policy that teachers must be present in the
hallways to monitor the behavior of students as the walk to their classes. Ms. Vinci was in not in
the hallway when Black threw the bean at Bonamico. In matters of the performance of official
duties governments and their agents are immune from liability. Although, there is an exception
where a failure to act places an identifiable person in imminent harm. The court ruled in favor of
the district and Vinci, as Vinci had no means of identifying Bonamico specifically as someone in
danger of injury and failing to act caused the imminent harm. Similarly, in the hypothetical case
of Ray Knight, the school officials had no means of identifying Ray Knight as being in danger
and that their failure to call the students parents caused the imminent harm in the shooting.
As supported in the cases of Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District and Bonamico v.
City of Middletown, the school officials in the case of Ray Knight should not be held liable.
While the school did fail to inform the family of the students suspension to their full
requirement, it cannot be found that the school officials were capable of knowing that Ray

Artifact #3: Tort and Liability

Knight was going to be imminently harmed in any way nor that the actions of the school officials
could have prevented Knight from being accidentally shot in the private home of a friend while
on a personal visit.

Artifact #3: Tort and Liability

References:
EISEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324Md376_1672/EISEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION

FREDERICK COUNTY SCHOOL BOARD v. HANNAH. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015,
from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/va-supreme-court/1174431.html

COLLETTE v. TOLLESON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 214. (n.d.). Retrieved October

17, 2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1291266.html

BONAMICO v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN. (n.d.). Retrieved October 17, 2015, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-court-of-appeals/1193243.html