Running Header: Tort and Liability

Artifact 5
Tort and Liability
Knight v. School District
Jessica Bojorquez
Education 210
Ms. Harington
May 8, 2015

Tort and Liability

Knight v. School District

Introduction
Ray Knight is a middle school student. Like most middle school students, Ray did not
enjoy school all of the time. Ray had been skipping school in order to hang out with his friends.
Other than skipping school, Ray was not what most would consider a bad student. However, the
middle school in which he attended had a strict attendance policy. Due to the excessive
unexcused absences, the school decided to suspend Ray. The school district in which Ray's
school is located has predetermined suspension policies in place. When a student is to be
suspended, the school district requires the parents of the student to be notified promptly by mail
and also by telephone call. Ray's school had only sent a written notice with Ray to give to his
parents. For fear of getting in trouble, Ray discarded the paper. His parents were unaware of his
suspension. During the first day of suspension, Ray was shot while visiting with a friend. Ray's
parents decided to sue the school district for damages.
Constitutional Law and Tort Liability
There are two parts of the Fourteenth Amendment. The amendment as written in the
Constitution states: All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the
jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No
State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens
of the Unites States; nor shall any State deprive any person life, liberty, or property, without due
process of law; nor deny any person with its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws. The

Tort and Liability

first part of the Fourteenth Amendment is most relevant to the case of Knight v. School District.
Ray should have been entitled to due process for his suspension. There was no hearing and no
chance for his parents to even have been mad aware of Ray's suspension. It also makes you call
into question whether or not the school also neglected to tell the parents about any of his
unexcused absences. Negligence is defined as a breach of one's legal duty to protect others from
unreasonable risks of harm. Ray's parents will be tasked with proving that the school district was
negligent with their breach of duty. Thus, causing the death of their son.
Supporting Cases
In the tragic case of Maldonado v. Tuckahoe Union Free School District, parents of an
injured student sought damages from the school district. Bridgette Maldonado was a high school
student who was dating a boy by the name of Brian Morris. Brian Morris was a seemingly model
student and star baseball player at their high school. Brian also had a well hidden anger and
jealousy problem. Bridgette and Brian had been having relationship troubles due to Brian's anger
and jealousy. These relationship troubles became serious when Brian threatened to kill Bridgette
and her nine-year old brother. The principal of the school called Bridgette's mother in to speak
with her about the incident and assured her that it was nothing serious. Brian was then suspended
later when he had gotten into a fight with a teacher. Bridgette decided to end their relationship
and Brian did not take it well. While on suspension, Brian showed up to Bridgette's house and
strangled her until she passed out. He then proceeded to the nearest train station where he
jumped in front of an oncoming train. He died instantly. Bridgette's family filed suit against the
school district stating that they were negligent in their efforts to prevent the incident. Despite the
severity of the situation, the courts ruled in favor of the school district. They stated that a school

Tort and Liability

is not an insurer of the safety of it's students when the school does not have physical custody of
them. The same could be said for Ray Knight's school. Regardless of whether or not the student
was given due process, school districts are not expected to protect truant and non-attending
students.
Another case in which a school district was sued for negligence in regards to sustained
injuries off school campus is the case of Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District. In this
case, a car operated by a student Zachary Thomason, struck another car with three passengers in
it. Zachary was a student in a high school that allowed students with GPA's of above 3.0 to leave
school campus for lunch if they desired. The school used this as a reward for academic
achievement and good behavior. Zachary was not one of these students. However, he left the
campus for lunch anyways. On his way back from lunch, in a hurry as to not be late, Zachary's
car collided with another car containing three people. All three passengers were injured and
decided to file suit against the school district. They sought damages for their medical bills and
other expenses sustained as a result of the accident. They stated that the school district had a duty
to protect the general public from the negligent driving of it's students who left campus.
However, Zachary did not have permission to leave the campus under the school's requirements.
The courts ruled in favor of the school district stating that, once again, the school district can not
be held liable for damages caused by a student off campus. Ray Knight's school district could
also argue that they were not negligent because the events that happened were not foreseeable.
The school had no implied duty to supervise him while on suspension.
Opposing Cases
The school district may try to argue that Ray Knight was intentionally negligent in his

Tort and Liability

decision to skip school and ultimately in the shooting. This was the school district's stance in the
case of Clay City Consolidated School District v. Timberman. A thirteen-year-old named Kodi
Pipes attended Clay Jr. High School. Kodi also played on the school's basketball team. On
November 17, 2003, Kodi blacked out during a practice session at school. The coach notified
Kodi's mother of the incident and she asked that the coach not let Kodi participate in any running
drills or strenuous practices. Kodi continued to attend school and practices as normal for the next
couple days. On the following Wednesday's practice, Kodi's basketball coach required the
students to perform running drills. Early in the drill Kodi collapsed and died. Kodi's parents
decided to file suit against the school. They argued that the school was negligent in their efforts
to protect it's students during school supervised activities. The school district then argued that
Kodi's own negligence contributed to his death. The courts ruled in favor of the parents, stating
that children between the ages of seven and fourteen are incapable of negligence. The same
could be said for Ray Knight. Perhaps the school district may argue that his contributory
negligence of skipping school ultimately led to his death. However, Ray is too young to fully
understand negligence and the impact of his decisions. The schools argument of intentional
negligence on Ray's part would be a weak one at best.
Ray's student rights are also something to consider in this case. In the case of Goss v.
Lopez nine students were suspended from Central High School in Columbus, Ohio for ten days
for destroying school property and disrupting the learning environment. The students were
suspended with no notice. At that point in time, Ohio state law did not require the school to do
so. The parent's of the students felt as though their children's right to due process of law had been
violated and decided to file suit agains the school district. The supreme court had found that

Tort and Liability

Central High School had fundamentally violated the students' Fourteenth Amendment Right to
due process of law if they had a property interest at steak. In this situation, the state of Ohio has
extended the right to educate it's citizens. Therefore, this right can not be withdrawn for
misconduct without fundamentally fair procedures to determine whether or not the misconduct
had occurred. These students have a legitimate entitlement to education. In fact, it is their
students' property right. The Supreme Court felt the same way and ruled in favor of the students.
Ray Knight was suspended and only given written notice. This is not only not the law in his
state, it is not even meet the requirements of the school district. This was an extreme violation of
Ray's property rights and a situation that due process should have been given. It could also be
argued that his school showed negligence of duty when not following proper procedure for
suspensions as set forth by the school district. This seemingly minor oversight has now cost a
student their life.
Ray Knight's parents are filing suit against the school district due to the loss of their son.
Schools have a fundamental duty to protect it's students in any way that is feasible. A series of
seemingly small infractions has lead to a tragic occurrence. This tragedy could have been
completely avoided if the school had notified Ray's parents of his suspension. Although the
school is not entirely responsible for students' safety outside of school, they are responsible for
following policies and procedures set in place by it's school district and state. I believe the courts
would agree and rule in favor of Ray's parents given the information provided.

Tort and Liability

References
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal rights of
teachers and students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.
Collette (n.d.) Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1291266.html
Maldonado (n.d.) Maldonado v. Tuckahoe Union Free School District Retrieved from
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-second-department/2006/200604989.html
Oyez (2015) Goss v. Lopez Retrieved from http://www.oyez.org/cases/19701979/1974/1974_73_898
Timberman (2009) Clay City Consolidated School Corporation v. Timberman II Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-supreme-court/1500753.html