Running head: Artifact #5 1

Artifact #5:

Amber Shewman

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact #5 2

Abstract

In this paper I will be discussing the scenario of Ray Knight a middle schooler who was

suspended. In this case I will be reviewing the cases of Warring v. Tempe School District, Goss

v. Lopez and Pistolese v. William Floyd Union Free District. In Tort liability cases we have to

determine which category the case will fall under and in this case it would fall under the

negligent. I will be discussing what the different is between n a comparative negligence and a

Contributory negligence.
Artifact #5 3

Artifact #5:

In the case of Knight v. School District we have a middle school student, Ray Knight

who was suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. The school district had a policy

that required a telephone notification and a written letter be sent by mail to his parents. However,

the school only sent a written letter home with the student. Ray threw away the letter. On the first

day of his suspension he was accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house. Ray’s parents

were unaware that their son had been suspended and felt that the school district was negligent in

their duties. When exploring the Ray Knight case as a tort liability case, it seems to fall into the

negligence category, because as case law shows, the child’s due process of the Fourteenth

Amendment rights was violated by the school’s failure to hold a hearing prior to the suspension.

In this case, we are looking at a tort liability. There is a legal obligation of one party to a

victim as a result of a civil wrong or injury. The case requires action of some form of remedy

which is normally in the form of money. This case, Ray’s parents believed that the school district

was negligent by not informing them of their son’s suspension and ultimately this action could

have eliminated the possibility of him being injured. In our textbook, it says that, “Negligence is

a breach of one’s legal duty to protect others from unreasonable risks of harm. The failure to act

or an improper act that results in injury or loss to another person can constitute as negligence”

(Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 20). The school district failed to inform the

parents of the suspension even though this was their own policy.

In the case of Warring v. Tempe school district you have a seven-year-old student that

rode the school bus home. The student was safely dropped off the school bus when he ran into
Artifact #5 4

the street to flee from another student. "The courts distributed the liability among the student

who was 45% at fault, his parents 40%, and finally the school district 15% due to the fact that

school officials were aware of the conduct at the bus stop near the heavily travelled street

(Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 31). In some of these cases the courts use the

comparative negligence model where they find that the plaintiff and/or one or more defendants

bear the responsibility of the fault of injury. Other cases use the contributory negligence policy.

If an individual’s actions are shown to have been substantially responsible for the injury then

they will be denied recovery. Courts have established the age ranges in an effort to help make a

unified decision depending on the students are. Ray knight would fall in the category of a child

between the age of seven and fourteen and therefore are considered to be incapable of

negligence, but this presumption can be rebutted.

Another case is the Pistolese v. William Floyd Union Free District; you have a student

that was assaulted by other youths while walking home from school. The courts did not hold the

school district liable due to the fact that this happened thirty minutes after exiting school

property. The courts declared that the student was no longer in the custody or control of the

school. If we look at our case at hand we have a student who was not on school property during

the injury he sustained. The decision of the courts this far does not look promising. There is a

general rule that states, “School Districts are not expected to protect truant and non-attending

students” (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 25). Ray Knight was a non-attending

student due to the fact that he was suspended. Therefore, he was not the school districts

responsibility to provide protection.

Most of these cases dealing with tort liability makes it very hard to prove that the school

district was at fault under the circumstances given. However, if we look at the ruling of Goss v.
Artifact #5 5

Lopez. It held that a public school must conduct a hearing prior a student being suspended. If a

hearing is not performed then this violates the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment.

This case is a difficult one to decide who was really liable for the injury of the student.

The school had suspended him and therefore they had no obligation to protect the student.

However, they violated their own policy as well as well as the due process clause of the

Fourteenth Amendment by not conducting a hearing prior to the suspension. If this was done

correctly his parents would have been informed of this situation and Ray might not have been

wondering around visiting friends when his parents assumed that he was in school. So If I was

the judge in this case I would use the comparative negligence policy in determining who was

liable for the injury. I would find Ray Knight 45% liable because he threw away the paper that

informed his parents of the suspension which could have resolved this whole situation if this

information was given to the parents. Then 55% liability would fall on the school district because

they violated the student’s due processes of the Fourteenth Amendment

Artifact #5 6

References

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal Rights of Teacher's

FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2017, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1415411.html

Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Retrieved April 20, 2017, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898

PISTOLESE v. WILLIAM FLOYD UNION FREE DISTRICT | 69 A.D.3d 825 (2010). (n.d.).

Retrieved April 20, 2017, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NYCO%2020100122425/PISTOLESE%20v.%20WILLI

AM%20FLOYD%20UNION%20FREE%20DISTRICT