1

Running Head: TORT AND LIABILITY

Tort and Liability

Monica Burgos
Sherry Herington
College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABILITY

Ray Knight was a student at a middle school. He had gotten suspended for three days
from school because he had unexcused absences. The school sent a notice of his suspension with
Ray, who threw it away, and his parents were not aware of his suspension. The schools
procedure required a telephone call and a written notice sent through mail to the parents. During
Rays first day of suspension he went to his friends house. While visiting his friend, Ray
accidentally got shot.
The case of [Maldonado v Tuckahoe] is similar to Ray Knights case. Bridgette
Maldonado was a student at Tuckahoe High School. She had a boyfriend that went to the same
high school, and his name was Brian Morris. According to Maldonado, her boyfriend had been
threatening to kill her and her little brother. Brian was threatening her because he was afraid she
would leave him for someone else. The principal at Tuckahoe had a meeting with Brian and
Bridgettes parents about the problems going on between the students. Brian had gotten
suspended from school on April twenty-fourth for fighting with a teacher. On May Eighth, at
approximately 8:30p.m, Brian, whom was still suspended from school, attacked Bridgette that
night at her house (Justia, US Law). A school is not an insurer of the safety of its students, and
the duty owed to its students is co-extensive with the schools physical custody and control over
them (Justia, US Law). Bridgette then filed suit against the school district for Brians attack.
She argued that the schools principal knew of the threats and he still hurt her. Bridgette lost the
case because it was at her residence and not at school. The court also decided this because
Bridgette voluntarily allowed Brian Morris in her house when he attacked her.
The case of [Collet v. Tolleson Unified School District] it is about five high school
students. Zachary Thomason was a student at Westview High School. Zachary and his four other
friends had driven to Desert Sky Mall in their hour lunch break. Their lunch break was from

TORT AND LIABILITY

11:20 a.m. to 12:10 p.m. The high school had a closed campus policy meaning that no students
were allowed to leave without their parents permission and consent. When they were coming
back to school from the mall, they got into a car accident. Zachary was driving when he tried to
pass another car and go back to his lane. While trying to do this, Zachary lost control of the
vehicle hitting Barbara Collettes car. Zachary was going seventy-two miles per hour. In this
case, the school district did not directly injure appellants. They were injured by Zachary, one of
the school districts students (FindLaw). The school district had nothing to do with how Zachary
was driving when they were coming back from the mall. The only fault the school district had
upon them was that they did not enforce the closed-campus policy with Zachary. For this case,
the school district won because they had no control over Zacharys driving and causing of the
accident. Even though it was during school, the accident did not happen in school, and they did
not have permission to leave the school campus in the first place.
Tort Liability is a great example for these cases. Tort cases primarily involve state law
and are grounded in the fundamental premise that individuals are liable for the consequences of
their conduct that result in injury of others (Tort Liability). A tort can also be explained as a civil
wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting in legal liability for the
person who commits the tortious act (Tort Law Liability).
For these cases, contributory negligence and comparative negligence are very important.
Contributory negligence basically means that if you contribute to your own injury, you cannot
hold anyone else responsible for it. (All Law) For example, in the case of [Maldonado v.
Tuckahoe], Bridgette contributed in her injury because she let Brian inside her home without
being forced. Comparative means to compare and negligence means failure to take proper care in
doing something. So, comparative negligence is figuring out the amount of fault that belongs to

TORT AND LIABILITY

each person. The case of Ray Knight and the school district is a good example for comparative
negligence. The school had the responsibility to send out a letter to his parents and a phone call
to advise them about Rays suspension. Instead, they gave a written notice to Ray, who threw it
away. Ray had to give the notice to his parents, but he did not, and accidently got shot during his
first day of suspension. This case, contributory negligence would be a way to solve the case.
Both were at fault, the school for not taking the time to call his parents, and Ray for throwing
away the note.
The case of [Goss v. Lopez] is a great example of students getting suspended without due
process. Dwight Lopez and eight other students were suspended for up to 10 days for
misbehaving at school. The students filed suit for being suspended without a hearing. Norval
Goss was the director of the school district in Columbus, Ohio. Goss lost the case against the
students because the judge decided that the students fourteenth amendment due process rights
had been violated (Law Case). The students did not have a hearing for their suspension so that
caused a violation of their due process rights.
Ray Knight was accidently shot on his first day of suspension. The school did not follow
the requirements of sending out a letter through mail and a phone call to his parents. First, the
school should have followed their policy and rules. Second, the school did not give Ray a
hearing and violated his 14th Amendment due process rights. If a student is suspended for 10 days
or less, the student should be given oral or written notice of the charges against him. If he denies
the charges he is owed, an explanation of the evidence against him. He should also have an
opportunity to present his side of the story. (Law Case)

TORT AND LIABILITY

Ray also was negligent, because he did not give his parents the notice of his suspension.
If Ray would have given his parents the suspension letter, he could have avoided being shot. Ray
contributed to his own injury, and death, because he had a responsibility.
In conclusion, the school did not follow its own policies and violated the 14th amendment
in Ray Knights case. Ray was irresponsible and went to his friends house instead. As a general
rule, school districts are not expected to protect truant and non-attending students or students
who are injured in their homes (Tort Liability). This means that, even though the school did not
take the correct steps in handling Rays situation, they are not responsible for Rays death. He
was truant, which means the school is not responsible for Ray or anything that happens out side
of the school campus.

TORT AND LIABILITY

6
Reference

All Law. Shared Blame: Comparative and Contributory Fault for a Personal Injury. David
Goguen, J.D. (2015) Retrieved from http://www.alllaw.com/articles/nolo/personalinjury/shared-blame-comparative-contributory-fault.html

Collete v. Tolleson Union School District No 214, September 2012, Retrieved from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1291266.html

Justia U.S Law. Maldonado v. Tuckahoe Union Free School District. (2006) Retrieved from
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-second-department/2006/200604989.html (2)

Law Case. Goss vs. Lopez. David Schimmel (9-2014) Retrieved from
http://www.britannica.com/topic/Goss-v-Lopez (2)

Tort Law Liability. Peter Clarke, (7-2015) Retrieved from http://www.legalmatch.com/lawlibrary/article/tort-law-liability.html

Tort Liability. Cambron-McCabe, N., McCarthy, M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights Of
Teachers And Students, Third Edition: Pearson, Page 20.
Truant Students. Cambron-McCabe, N., McCarthy, M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights Of
Teachers And Students, Third Edition: Pearson, Page 25.