2017

EDU 210

Yesica
Diaz

[EDU 210 PORTFOLIO

ARTIFACT 3]
Tort & Liability
 Portfolio Artifact 3

Diaz 1

Ray Knight a local student was accidentally shot while visiting a friends house. Many

might ask themselves a well thought out question, where Rays parents when this incident

occurred? They were unaware of his whereabouts because Ray and his school failed to inform

them that Ray was on a three day suspension, because of his unexcused absences. There was a

written notice that was sent home with Ray but he disposed of it before his parents could see it.

There was also a lack of a phone call home, which is required per school district policy.

First we are faced with the question of considering if Rays parents have defensible

grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials? This particular scenario is an

example of an unintentional tort. This was a form of negligence on the schools behalf. This tort

was a civil wrong that resulted from a violation of duty and there was harm caused. Had the

school followed through with proper district procedures then the parents would have been aware

of their sons whereabouts and current school suspension. Rays parents are not unique in

wanting to file a rightful claim.

There are many elements of negligence and not all form of accidents or injuries create

liability for negligence, Rays parents must be aware of this. Rays parents can argue that there

was a breach of duty in this case. As similar case that they can reference is that of Thomas V.

City Lights School Inc. In this case the students parents filed one count of negligent supervision

against City Lights Inc. for not providing adequate supervision when the student was in there

care on a school field trip. Rays parent could argue that to their knowledge Ray was under the

schools care and they therefore felt no need to worry about where he was. Rays parents can

clearly show that a real physical damage occurred and that they deserve to file a claim of
 Portfolio Artifact 3

Diaz 2

negligence both for tangible and intangible suffering. Similar to the THOMAS V. CITY LIGHTS

(2000) case the school had a duty to provide watch over its students. Had Rays parents been

properly communicated with then the situation could have been avoided.

Now the school district Ray attends could counter with many valid points. Assumption of

Risk is the Districts biggest defense in this particular case. Ray knowingly hid his suspension

from his parents and failed to deliver the one notice the school sent home with him. He

knowingly wen to his friends house and accepted the risks of the activities he was participating

in. Ray chose to take part in an extreme activity and he should assume all the consequences.

Another thing that the school district can argue is that they did not have a complete breach of

duty because an attempt was made to inform the parents. Another thing that the school can argue

is that Ray had a track record for being absent without an excused note and those times the

parents were notified. Therefore it can be argued to that to an extent Rays parent knew of his

frequent ditching. Ray can be charged with contributory negligence as well and be accused of to

a certain extent causing his own damage.

A case that this school can references is the ROLLINS v. CONCORDIA PARISH

SCHOOL BOARD. (2000) This case involved a student getting hurt on school grounds and still

being held to be fifty percent contributorily negligent. The student was told that an activity in

which she was engaging was dangerous be the teacher supervising her at the moment. With an

even better reason Rays school can rightfully say that they could not supervise him if he wasnt

on school grounds. A school cannot be held liable for damages unless it is shown that by the

existing degree of supervision required by the circumstances could have prevented the act that

caused the damage. The school can say that yes they failed to make a first notice call to Rays
 Portfolio Artifact 3

Diaz 3

parents but that he eluded both the supervision of the school and his parents. Has Ray been on

suspension and his parents well aware would he still have been at his friends house the day the

incident occurred? It is very likely.

I feel like the court case will rule a fifty fifty case. What I mean by this is that the court

will charge both the school district and Ray. The school district will be found guilty of with

negligence for not properly communicating with Rays parent via phone. The court will also find

Ray to be partially at fault for contributing to the predicament he found himself in. This will still

allow for Rays parents to receive compensation but only half of what they would have gotten

had their son not been partially at fault. This will serve as a good lesson to both the school and

the Knight family.

 Portfolio Artifact 3

Diaz 4

References:

For the District of Colombia, U. D. (n.d.). Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc., 124 F.
Supp. 2d 707 (D.D.C. 2000). Retrieved December 13, 2000, from
http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/rollins.htm

Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc. 124 F. Supp. 2d 707 (D.D.C. 2000).(n.d.) Retrieved
April 21, 2017, from http://justicia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/124707/2569586