Running Head: PORTFOLIO 3

Portfolio 3
Jamie Poma
College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: PORTFOLIO 3

Portfolio 3, Tort and Liability

A young boy by the name of Ray Knight was shot due to a tragic case of poor
communication. The school did not follow the district procedure and the only notification
to the parents was a note sent home with Ray. Per school district procedure, a note
sent home is not the only required form of documentation when expelling a student. The
school is required to phone the parent/guardian immediately as well as notify them by
mail. In this case, the note that was sent home with Ray notifying his parents that he
had been expelled, never reached their hands. Young Ray decided to throw the note out
and take a free day without the rule of supervision. While young Ray enjoyed his free
day out at a friends house without parental or professional supervision, he was shot.
This incident is a tragic and very real scenario. This could easily happen to just
about any student, especially in this state. Really, the child is at fault for being deceitful
and neglecting to adhere to rules put in place for him by the school and his parents. In
any case he was under the supervision of the school district and proper procedure could

Running Head: PORTFOLIO 3

have saved his life. From the districts point of view they were in the right for sending a
letter home. Despite proper procedure not being followed upon the event the student
was expelled he was sent home with a note. The court could rule in favor of the school
and claim the student was at fault. In the defense of the school, the student chose to
leave campus or not attend, while doing so his activities caused harm to himself and no
one else. In a similar case with a pedestrian the school district was not held liable. In
this case, the District did not directly injure appellants; they were injured by Thomason,
one of the District's students. (Collete v. Tolleson Unified School District, sec 12) In
favor of the district, it is the student that put himself in danger. The district did not
directly harm him. Another argument in defense of the district is that of care. Did the
district lack their duty to care for the student? Well in any case they did send a note
home and the school cannot physically withhold a student on campus. This Court
stated that the teachers alleged failure to control the area of the experiment is more
akin to the allegation of the failure to supervise the students which we held subject to
the defense of governmental immunity. (Tacket v. Pine Richland School District) The
district did not lack care of the student, the student left the care of his parents and the
school. Therefore, in defense of the school, they cannot be held liable.
Now, in my opinion, despite the evidence above the school is completely at fault.
If I were the parent I would indeed go after the school as well as the teacher for not
following proper procedure when expelling a student. If the parents had known he was
expelled they would have made proper arrangements to take care of their child. The
only reason the child was in danger is due to lack of responsibility. The teacher in
question simply turned her head after sending a note home hoping the matter would be

Running Head: PORTFOLIO 3

taken care of. It is our duty as educators to keep our students safe to the best of our
ability and to the standard of our duty. This teacher did not follow the basic proper
procedure which put her student at risk of any number of situations. On a schoolsponsored field trip, a child unsupervised while swimming in the ocean was hurt by a
rolling log (Morris v. Douglas County Sch. Dist., 1965) In this case the teacher was
found negligent. Simply speaking, the teacher in question did the same thing to her
student. She did not follow up with the students parents what so ever.
Overall this case is something I believe has happened within my own district
growing up and even to myself. Obviously I wasn't injured or shot for that matter but the
school never followed up with my parents after missing a few days of class. Following
proper procedure can save a students life and their education. A students whereabouts
should be the main priority of a teacher. If a student misses class or has been expelled,
the teacher should be concerned enough to follow up with the parents. A follow up, a
phone call and concern can help put the student back on the right track. This teacher in
question did not do anything to ensure her student was safe and possibly getting back
on track. This teacher was negligent without question.

Running Head: PORTFOLIO 3

References
Dougherty, J. W. (2004). Torts and liability: An educator's short guide. Phi Delta Kappa
Fastbacks, (527), 3-45. Retrieved from http://ezproxy.library.csn.edu/login?
url=http://search.proquest.com/docview/203657532?accountid=27953
Collete v. Tolleson Unified School District. (2003, April 22). Retrieved September 17,
2015, from
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2748/2813969/Volume_medialib/COL
LETE.PDF
Tacket v. Pine Richland School District. (2002, March 14). Retrieved September 17,
2015, from
http://wps.prenhall.com/wps/media/objects/2748/2813969/Volume_medialib/COLLETE.
PDF
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.