ARTIFACT #3: TORT AND LIABILITY

Artifact #3:
Tort and Liability
Angelina Tang
College of Southern Nevada
October 15, 2016

ARTIFACT #3: TORT AND LIABILITY

In this scenario, Ray, a middle school student was suspended from school due to
unexcused absences. The district has a policy that requires the school to make a telephone
notification along with a written notice by mail, letting the parents know of the issue. However,
the school only sent a written note home with Ray, who just threw the note away. His parents
were unaware of the issue and on Rays first day of suspension, he was accidentally shot while
visiting a friends house.
The first case that is presented in favor of Rays parents to pursue liability charges is
D.C v. St. Landry Parrish School Board (2001). In this case, an 11-year-old girl arrived to school
and upon arrival the principal noticed that she was not within dress code policy rules. He asked
her to go to the office so she could call home for a change of clothes. Once at the office, she
informed Ms.Guilbeau, the secretary, as to why she was there. She made the phone call and her
brother answered and he let her know that he would not be able to go to the school and drop of
her change of clothes because he had no transportation available. She informed Ms. Guilbeau,
that in order to obtain a change of clothes she would have to go home. Ms.Guilbeaupushedthe
checkoutsheettowardherandtoldherto"signout(2001).Onherwayhome,shewassexually
molested.Althoughtheincidenthappenedoffschoolproperty,theschoolhadadutytomake
sureshewassafe.Schoolpolicyisthatstudentsareonlyallowedtoleavewithparentor
guardianpermissionandonlytheprincipaland/orviceprincipalcangrantthat.Thereshould
havebeendirectcontactwithherparentsbuttherewasnoneandshewasabletoleavelikethat.
LikeRayssituation,nofurthereffortsweremadetogetincontactwiththeparentorlegal
guardian.Thedutyisbreachedwhentheindividualactsunreasonablyincarryingouttheduty
(Underwood,2006).Aschoolshouldhavedonetheirdutytocommunicatethesuspensionwith
districtpolicyandjustwhattheythoughtwasconvenientatthetime.

ARTIFACT #3: TORT AND LIABILITY

ThesecondcasetobepresentedinfavorofRaysparentsisKingv.NortheastSecurity,
Inc.(2000).Inthiscase,King,ahighschoolstudent,atNorthCentralwasassaultedoutinthe
parkinglotbyfourotherstudents.Theschoolhadhiredsecuritytohelpprovideexteriorsecurity
aftertheschoolhadexperiencedincreaseincrimeactivity.Atthetimeoftheincident,the
securityguardthatwasondutyhadgoneinsidetomakeapersonalcall.Thesecuritycompany
statesthattheyhavenodutytoKingandthattheyarenotresponsibletowhathappenedtohim.
LikeinRayscase,theschoolmadeanattempttokeepthestudentssafeaftercriminalactivity
startedtorisebutthenwhenanactualinjuryhappenedtheysaidtheywerenotliable.When
injurieshappenintheschoolsettingtheschoolpersonnelhaveadutytoprovidereasonable
assistance(Underwood,2006).AlthoughtheschoolwasnotincontractwithKinghimself,they
werestillthereonschoolgroundstoserveapurposeandpreventedthisfromactuallyhappening.
ThefirstcasetobepresentedagainstRaysparentsisCavev.Burt(2004).Twohigh
schoolstudentsweretransportingbaseballequipmentinthetrunkofBurtstruckfromthe
equipmentroomouttothefield.Whilemakingtheirwaytothefield,Cavefellfromthebackof
thetruckandsustainedinjuries.CavefieldacomplaintstatingthatBurtwasrecklesslyandthe
schoolnegligentlysupervisedthestudents.Ourtextstates,assumptionofriskdefenseagainst
negligenceistheideathatistheplaintiffknowinglyandvoluntarilyacceptedtheriskofan
activity,he/sheshouldnotbeallowedtorecoverforinjuriescausedbythoseknownrisks
(2006).Inthiscase,Caveknewtherisksthatcouldbeassociatedwithridingonthetrunk.Ray
voluntarilythrewthenoteawaywithoutinforminghisparentsofhissuspension.Thereisnoway
Raysparentshaveanargumentagainsttheschoolbecausetheirchildwillinglyacceptedthe
riskswhenhethrewthenoticeaway.

ARTIFACT #3: TORT AND LIABILITY

ThesecondcasepresentedagainstRaysparentsisGlaserv.EmporiaUnifiedSchool
District(2001).Todd,amiddleschoolstudent,wasstruckbyacar,whileheranoffschool
groundsandintoapublicstreetafterbeingchasedoffbyanotherstudent.Theincidentoccurred
beforethebeginningofschoolsothestaffandfacultyowedToddnodutyatthatpointbecause
hewasnotinaschoolbuilding.Raysincidentalsooccurredwhileoffschoolgroundsandaway
fromanyschoolsupervision.Thereisnoliabilitytotheschoolbecauseanotewassenthomeand
Rayshouldhaveturneditintohisparents.SinceRaydidtheoppositeofwhatheshouldhave
done,itcausedhimtoberesponsibleforhisowninjuries.Undercontributorynegligencethe
plaintiff(Ray)hasbeennegligentandcausedanypartofhisowndamages(2006).
Afterevaluationonbothsidesofthescenario,IbelievethatRaysparentshaveno
defensiblegroundsunderthecasesCavev.Burt(2004)andGlaserv.EmporiaUnifiedSchool
District(2001).Raysownnegligenceinsimplyturninginthenotetohisparentspartlycaused
theinjurieshesustained.Althoughtheschooldidhalfoftheirpartinnotifyingtheparentsof
Rayssuspension,thedutywasbreachedwhenRayfailedtonotifyhisparents.Itwasatthe
pointwhenRaythrewthenoteawaythathevoluntarilyacceptedtherisksandassumedthe
consequences.UndercontributorynegligenceRayhasbeennegligentofhimselfandhascaused
anyorallpartsofhisowndamages(2006).

ARTIFACT #3: TORT AND LIABILITY

References
Cavev.Burt.2004.WL1465730.(2004).June29,2004.RetrievedOctober15,2016.
http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2004/2004Ohio3442.pdf
D.C.v.St.LandryParrishSchoolBoard.802So.2d19(2001).March7,2001.Retrieved
October14,2016.http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819/D.C.%20v.
%20ST.%20LANDRY%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.
Glaserv.EmporiaUnifiedSchoolDistrict,No.253,21P.3d573.(2001)April20,2001.
RetrievedOctober14,2016.http://caselaw.findlaw.com/kssupremecourt/1364854.html
Kingv.NortheastSecurity,Inc.732N.E.2d824(2000)July25,2000.RetrievedOctober14,
2016.http://www.leagle.com/decision/20001556732NE2d824_11534/KING%20v.
%20NORTHEAST%20SEC.,%20INC.
Underwood,J.&Webb,L.(2006).NegligenceandDefamationintheSchoolSetting.School
LawforTeachers:ConceptsandApplications.UpperSaddleRiver,NewJersey.Pearson
Education,Inc.