Portfolio Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 1

Portfolio Artifact #3

Tort and Liability

Lisa N. Dickson

College of Southern Nevada

March 16, 2019

 Portfolio Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 2

Tort and Liability

A middle school student named Ray Knight got suspended. He had too many absences that

were not excused so he got a three day suspension. The school handed him a note to take to his

parents but instead he threw it away. The school procedures require a phone call and a written

letter to the parents. The school only gave Knight a note for his parents. Knight’s parents had no

idea he was suspended. On Knight’s first day of his suspension then Knight went to a friend’s

house and was shot accidently. The question in this case is if Knight’s parents have a right to

liability charges against the school and if the school can be found careless.

The first case I would like to present in favor of the defendant Knight having the legal

right to sue the school for liability is Murray v Indianapolis Public School (2018). Jaylan Murray

was a sixteen year old with divorced parents. He lived with his dad, Marcus, and they argued

quite often. Jaylan ran away a lot and Marcus had an open file with Indiana Department of Child

Services (DCS). When Jaylan ran away he would still go to school. When he ran away his dad

had an idea of where he was at and checked in with the school. When he ran away this time

Marcus reported him missing even though he knew where he was probably at. He was gone for

over a week and was found murdered. Little is known about his murder except that it was not

gang related. His murder is not what we are questioning. Marcus was informed that Jaylan

checked in at school on the day of his murder. Jaylan left school shortly after he checked in

through an unlocked unmonitored exit. Students were expected to sign in and out through the

front entrance. Students not following the rules could use a fire exit because it is against the law

to lock them. A camera saw Jaylan in the school before he left. Jaylan’s dad filed for wrongful

death against the school saying that they had been carless in properly supervising and monitoring

their students during school hours. He also said that proper communication between him and the
 Portfolio Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 3

school could have helped save his child’s life. If they had done their job, then Jaylan would have

still been at school and he would still be alive. When Jaylan left school or did not go to school

proper communication between the school and Jaylen’s dad could have been the key to saving

Jaylen. Marcus Murray won the case and the school was found negligent and liable. Murray v

Indianapolis Public School (2018) the school new Jaylen left the school grounds, it was on

video, just like the school new Knight was at home. In Murray v Indianapolis Public School

(2018) Jaylen’s dad had to call the school to see if his child was in school or not, the school did

not let him know, Knight’s parents would have had to call the school also because the school did

not communicate well with the parents. In Murray v Indianapolis Public School (2018) they

were found responsible for Jaylen’s safety off of school grounds, so they school could be

responsible for Knight’s safety off of the school grounds also. Murray v Indianapolis Public

School (2018) case significantly backs up Knight’s liability case that a school is responsible for

their students and of needing to keep the parents informed on changes with their student.

The second case I would like present in favor of the Knights filing a liability lawsuit

against his school is Norman v. Ogallala Public School Dist. (2000) case. In this case 15 year old

boy named Christopher was a freshman and took a welding class at school. The school provided

some protective gear for students to wear but it was not required. The teacher told them they

should wear protective clothing with a handout. The handout said the clothing should be heavy

fire retardant clothing. The teacher said to just bring an old shirt it will work. Christopher’s left

side arm caught on fire. He had second and third degree burns. Two witnesses said that if he was

not wearing that old shirt he would not have caught on fire. The school and teacher were found

negligent in teaching proper safety and for having proper equipment and were found liable. The

court found the school negligent and liable in failing to provide students and parents with
 Portfolio Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 4

sufficient information about protective clothing. Norman v. Ogallala Public School Dist. (2000)

case can be used in Knight’s case because the parents were not informed in either case. If the

parents had been informed then they would have known where their child was and not out

wandering or not wearing proper equipment at school. Even though in Norman v. Ogallala

Public School Dist. (2000) the accident happened at school in Knight’s case the school could still

be liable because the parents were not informed. In both instances the school did not follow

protocol.

The case Fenrich v. the Blake School (2018) is the first case I would like to present in favor

of the Knight’s parents having no grounds to fill liability charges. In this case Fenrch v. Blake

School (2018) then a boy was driving his cross country team to an unofficial meet. The coach

signed them up after the season was over and that is why there were no buses. The driver is only

ever listed as T.M. He was 16 and his parents said he was ok to drive other students and the

assistant coach to the meet if they caravanned. Later you would see that he should not have been

driving without someone 21 or older in the car. T.M. swerved out of his lane and caused an

accident. Gary Fenrich died and his wife JeanAnn was severely hurt. Fenrich filed a law suit

against the school and the coaches of the cross country team. The courts first decided that the

school could be liable for students driving to a meet as a team and that this is a case of

misfortunes. After the courts decided that the school could be liable in Fenrch v. Blake School

(2018), they had to decide if this was a foreseeable occurrence. The courts decided in Fenrch v.

Blake School (2018) that this was an unforeseeable accident and that the school is not

responsible. In Fenrch v. Blake School (2018) you could not foresee the outcome of an accident

and neither could Knight’s school foresee him being shot. The only reason this is being brought

before the courts is because of the paperwork. If Knight would not have been hurt on suspension
 Portfolio Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 5

then none of it would have mattered. The school could not foresee the accident and therefore just

like in Fenrch v. Blake School (2018), the school would not be found liable.

. Knight’s parents have no right to file liability charges and the case Kerwin v. County of

San Mateo(1959) will be presented in favor of this. In the case Kerwin v. County of San

Mateo(1959), Thomas Courtney was six years old. He got sick at school. The school tried

notifying his parents but only got ahold of his eleven year old brother Richard. Richard was at

home sick. The school told Richard he needed to come get his brother from school. Even though

Richard did not feel good he rode his one person bike to pick up his brother. On their way home

Richard was injured by his bike. The Courtney family felt like the school was at fault. The courts

decided in the Kerwin v. County of San Mateo(1959) case that the school can not foresee the

impending future. The school had no way to see that Richard would get injured. Boys their age

go to and from school all the time and return home safe all the time. Knight’s school also could

not see that Knight would be injured. In Knight’s case and in Kerwin v. County of San

Mateo(1959) the schools tried to let the parents know that their children would be leaving/ out of

school. In both cases the schools could not have known what would happen. The Knights have

no rights to liability charges because of the unforeseen circumstances that happen just like in the

Kerwin v. County of San Mateo (1959) case.

My decision for the Knight family is in favor of them having the right to sue the school for

liability charges like in Norman v. Ogallala Public School Dist.(2000) and Murray v

Indianapolis Public School (2018). In Murray v Indianapolis Public School (2018) the school

was found liable for letting Jaylen leave the school without permission and for not informing the

dad of Jaylen leaving school. This cases injury took place off of school grounds and with the

school having not given the parents all the information that they should have the same as in the
 Portfolio Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 6

Knights case. In Norman v. Ogallala Public School Dist.(2000) then the school was found liable

for not giving all of the correct information out to the parents and students. If the school had

properly informed the Knight’s, then Ray might still be alive. Even though Ray was off of school

grounds, his parents did not know that and the school could be partial liable because they could

have stopped the incident if they would have followed protocol.

 Portfolio Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 7

References

Fenrich v the Blake School. A17-0063. 920 N.W.2d 195 (2018). Supreme Court of Minnesota.
Filed: November 21, 2018. Retrieved March 13, 2019.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/inmnco20181121386

Kerwin v. County of San Mateo. Docket No. 18106. 176 Cal.App.2d 304 (1959) 1 Cal. Rptr.
437. Court of Appeals of California, First District, Division One. December 17, 1959.
Retrieved March 13, 2019.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1959480176calapp2d3041431.

Murry v. Indianapolis Public School. No. 18A-CT-1955. Court of Appeals of Indiana.

December 18, 2018.Retrieved March 13, 2019.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/ininco20181218240

Norman v. Ogallala Public School Dist., 609 NW 2d 338 - Neb: Supreme Court 2000. No. S-98-
993. April 14, 2000. Retrieved March 12, 2019.
https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=15371353275858542639&q=school+neglige
nce&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.