Running head: ASSIGNMENT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY 1

Portfolio Assignment #3
Tort and Liability
Stephanie Mora
College of Southern Nevada
October 14, 2016
ASSIGNMENT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Tort and Liability

Ray Knight, a middle school student, was suspended for three days as a result of

unexcused absences. Despite school district procedures requiring a telephone notification and a

prompt written notice by mail to his parents, the school just sent a notice with Ray. However,

Ray Knight threw away this notice, so his parents were unware of the suspension. On the first

day of his suspension, Ray was accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house. The question

that remains is whether or not Ray’s parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges

against the school officials.

The first case that supports Ray’s parents having defensible grounds to pursue liability

charges is D.C. v St. Landry Parish School Board (2001). Twelve-year-old seventh grade student

residing with her father and two brothers in Opelousas, and attending East Junior High School in

that city. K.C. entered school, she encountered Mr. Hooks, who informed her that her skirt was

too short and violated the school dress code K.C. informed Ms. Guilbeau that to obtain

appropriate clothing, she would have to go home and change. According to K.C., Ms. Guilbeau

pushed the check-out sheet toward her and told her to "sign out." As she walked along the street

toward her home, she encountered Neil Mark Lewis, who sexually molested her. Both Mr.

Morrison and Mr. Hooks testified that allowing K.C. to check herself out violated school policy.

Mr. Morrison testified that, at the least, school policy required that some contact be made by

school personnel with a child's parent before the child could leave campus. In a situation where a

parent could not be contacted, the proper thing to do would be to have the child remain in the

office or return to class until such contact could be made. she did acknowledge that school policy

granted only the principal or vice-principal authority to allow a child to leave the campus. injury
ASSIGNMENT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY 3

to K.C. occurred during school hours and, therefore, at a time when K.C.'s actual custody was

entrusted to the defendants. (underwood & Webb p105-106)

Courts found causal connection exists between her lack of supervision and the incident giving

rise to her injury. We further find that the incident would not have occurred but for the absence

of the appropriate degree of care and supervision required under the facts of the case at bar.

This relates to Ray’s case because the school overlooked the proper procedure which led to a

regrettable end. Also, by disregarding these procedure they breached their duty of proper care

supervision owed to the students.

Similarly, Brahatcek v Millard School District (1979) supports Ray’s parents having

defensible grounds to pursue liability charges. David, who was a ninth grade student 14 years of

age, was injured on April 3, 1974, during a physical education class conducted in the gymnasium

of Millard Central Junior High School. He was struck by a golf club swung by a fellow student,

Mark Kreie. He was rendered unconscious and died 2 days later without regaining

consciousness. Because decedent was absent from school on that day, his first exposure to the

program was when his class next met on Wednesday, the day of the accident. David Thompson

in group with student testified Mark Kreie, who had just finished hitting, returned to the mat and

took the club to show decedent the grip and stance. Decedent then moved a couple of feet behind

Mark and to his right while Mark took two practice swings. Mark then attempted to take a full

swing but he hit decedent while bringing the club back. Ike F. Pane the principal provided

schools written rules of instruction specifically setting forth in what manner or procedure the

instruction was to be undertaken and achieved. However, after David's fatal injury he discovered

that the physical arrangements for instruction were quite different than that specified. f the

instructions had been followed it would have been difficult to have two people on a mat at the
ASSIGNMENT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY 4

same time. It was Mr. Kurtz and Mrs. Beveridge who decided to vary the placement of the mats

from that recommended in exhibit 9. Court affirmed the decision that school district was liable.

This relates to Ray Knight like here where written rules and procedures which to conduct golf

was ignored and someone was hurt. Likewise in Ray knight’s case set procedures were ignored

and this decision led to lamentable result /injuries that may have otherwise been prevented.

The first case that holds that Ray Knight’s parents don’t have valid grounds to pursue

liability is Glaser v Emporia Unified School District (2001). December 22, 1993, Glaser was a

12-year-old seventh-grade student at Lowther South. He lived approximately a 15- to 20-

minute walk from school, and he normally got to school by walking. School began at 8:10 a.m

ca car struck and injuread a boy when he ran off school grounds an onto a public street while

being chased by another student (underwood & Webb p. 101) “restricting the area of teacher

responsibility to ‘the building’ and ‘the school site’ ” as a detriment to the claim that the school

district affirmatively assumed a duty to ensure Jeremy's safety before and after school.

This relates to Ray because in the same matter, Ray was outside of the building/school site, so it

was no longer their duty to protect/ superviseRay since he was “not in schools custody or under

its control” (Underwood & Webb p. 101). Furthermore, the result was not something that the

school could have predicted.

Rollins v Concordia Parish School Board (1985) further shows that Ray’s parents don’t

have enough grounds to pursue sole liability against the school officials. t Mrs. Linda Green, a

substitute teacher, was supervising the class by walking back and forth between both groups

when, too fast. The merry-go-round was propelled by the girls sitting on it and pushing it with

their feet. Recognizing the danger, Mrs. Green told the girls, including Lisa, to slow down and
ASSIGNMENT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY 5

get off. Just as she admonished Lisa and the other girls, she heard two boys begin arguing over a

basketball and one of them yelled for Mrs. Green. Mrs. Green turned away from the merry-go-

round and walked toward the boys leaving the girls still rapidly spinning on the merry-go-round.

Mrs. Green walked about twenty feet when she heard one of the girls yell that Lisa was hurt, so

she returned to help Lisa. When she reached Lisa she asked what happened and Lisa told her that

she fell off the merry-go-round and hurt her leg. Mrs. Green carried Lisa to the principal's office,

where Dr. Gibson, the school principal, took charge of the situation the School Board was

negligent in not properly supervising the playground activities, that Lisa's injury was aggravated

by the lack of immediate medical attention, and that Lisa was guilty of contributory negligence.

Like in Ray’s case the school was guilty of negligence for one reason or another, but their

negligence was not the only factor that caused for accident. Specifically, by Ray choosing to

throw away his notice of suspension and go to his friend’s house, he had some blame to what

happened.
ASSIGNMENT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY 6

References

Brahatcek v Millard School District (1979) Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979953273NW2d680_1949/BRAHATC
EK%20v.%20MILLARD%20SCH.%20DIST.,%20SCH.%20DIST.%20

D.C. v St. Landry Parish School Board (2001) Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819/D.C.%20v.%20ST.%20LAN
DRY%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.#

Glaser v Emporia Unified School District (2001) Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1364854.html

Rollins v Concordia Parish School Board (1985) Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1985678465So2d213_1618/ROLLINS%20v.%20CONC
ORDIA%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.

Underwood, J, Webb, L.D. (2006) School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. Upper
Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.