ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

Artifact #3
Tort and Liability
Angel Gutierrez
College of Southern Nevada
5th of March 2015
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

A middle school student named Ray Knight was placed on suspension for three

days due to failure to show up school. Once the suspension takes effect the school district

follows the procedure of sending a telephone notification and prompting a written notice

to the parents so that they are aware of the suspension taking place. The school instead

gave the notice to the student Ray Knight in assumption that he would then give it to his

parents so that they are aware of his three day suspension. Instead, Ray threw out the

notice and decided to visit a friends house on his first day of suspension. Unfortunately

for Ray Knight he was shot accidently while visiting his friends house. The question to

be answered here is if Rays parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges

against school officials?

In favor of Ray Knight, his parents can argue that the school failed to

follow procedures of required telephone notification along with notice by mail that would

have kept his parents aware of the suspension and ultimately Ray Knight would not have

found himself accidently shot. Ray Knights parents could argue that this was an act of

negligence due to the failure to exercise proper care by not following proper procedures

in notifying the parents. His parents can say that due to the failure to follow proper

procedures this resulted in the death of Ray Knight. As noted on page 100 of Nevada

School Law for Teachers, Negligence occurs only when someone acts unreasonable and

as a result the other is injured. (2006). Rays parents can also argue that due to the

expected procedures not being followed by the teacher this resulted in negligence because

the teacher did not care enough to ensure that the parents were aware of the suspension.
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

The following will be used as an argument against Ray Knight. The teacher may

argue against Ray Knights parents due to the fact that she was not negligent because she

did provide notice about the suspension. She may state that due to Ray Knight throwing

out his notice that was to be given to his parents he contributed to the negligence under

Contributory Negligence. Under contributory negligence, if the plaintiff has been

negligent and caused any part of his or her own damages, there is no recovery.

(Underwood & Webb, 2006). If the court agrees that due to Ray Knight tossing out his

suspension notice and Ray making the decision to walk to his friends house he would

then be held accountable and the teacher would not have to take responsibility for his

death.

One last case scenario that can be argued would be that both parties are at fault

due to comparative negligence. It can be argued that the teacher and Ray Knight both

contributed to the negligence. Due to the teacher not taking the proper steps in sending

out a telephone call she would have partial fault for the negligence which resulted in the

death of Ray Knight. Ray Knight would then have partial fault for tossing out the notice

of suspension. Both parties would then be guilty of negligence to a certain degree. In this

case the parents of Ray Knight would only win a portion of damage award. Comparative

negligence apportions the damage award among the negligent parties depending on the

relative degree of fault or their contributions to the injuries. (Underwood & Webb,

2006).

My decision is against both parties. I believe that both parties failed to follow

proper procedures which ultimately resulted in the negligence of Ray Knight. If the
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

teacher would have sent out the required telephone call she would have followed all

proper procedures. The teacher is at fault of failure of duty. A duty can arise from an

individuals own action when a person assumes additional responsibility. (Underwood

& Webb, 2006). It was the teachers responsibility to telephone the parents so that they

could be aware of the suspension, sending just a notice with Ray Knight means that she

did not follow proper procedures expected. Ray Knight is also partially at fault due to the

fact that he knew he was supposed to give the notice to his parents about the suspension

but decided to rip it up instead. Failure to give the notice to his parents resulted in them

not knowing about the suspension therefore Ray leaving his house while on suspension

was at his own will which contributed to his death.

ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

References

Underwood, J. & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.