Portfolio Three: Tort and Liability

Portfolio Three: Tort and Liability

Giovanni Morabito

College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Three: Tort and Liability
2

Ray Knight is a middle school student who was suspended from his school for three days.

The reason for his suspension was that Ray Knight had multiple unexcused absences, missing

many days without notifying the school with an absence slip signed by his parents. Per the

school’s procedure, the school is ​required​ to send a notification by both telephone and mail.

However, the school instead had only notified Ray Knight of his students and placed the

responsibility of informing the parents to him. To little surprise, Ray Knight threw the

notification slip away, causing his guardians to not receive it. On Ray Knight’s first day of being

suspended, he visited a friend’s house (possibly during school hours) and was shot accidentally

during his visit. Because of this incident, Ray Knight’s guardians seek to sue the middle school

for negligence.

One case the court may look at to support the side of the school could be the Tackett v.

Pine Richland School District case. In short, this case involves a student by the name of Sean

Tackett was burned by a fellow classmate during a chemistry experiment. Sean Tackett accused

of his classmates being negligent however Tackett was dismissed because “In order to maintain a

negligence claim under the real property exception, the injured party must prove that the injury

resulted from a dangerous condition arising from the care, custody and control of the real

property by a local government agency.” The court could dismiss the parents of Knight in a

similar manner as his injury occurred off campus. Since Ray Knight obtained his injury at a

friend’s house, he was under “care, custody, and control” at that location. If he was shot at the

school, the court might be in Knight’s favor since the injury occurred on a “local government

agency” of which schools are apart of.

Portfolio Three: Tort and Liability
2

Another case the court can take a look at to support the school is the Bonamico

V. City of Middletown. To sum it up, this case occurred when Rosamaria Bonamico was hit in

the eye with a bean pellet by a fellow student in passing period while teachers were absent in the

hall; the bean pellets came from a previous class period after an assignment. The court dismissed

the case as “The harm allegedly suffered by the minor plaintiff was caused by the voluntary,

wilful or negligent acts of another student.” and the court argued the incident would’ve happened

with or without teacher supervision. Looking at this case, the court could favor the school as Ray

Knight’s actions were “voluntary, wilful, [and] negligent”. Ray Knight ended up in his situation

due to his actions and so he would have to be responsible for his actions.

One case the court can look at to take the side of the Knight family is the Collette v.

Tolleson Unified School District. To summarize, Barbara Collette and her husband were

involved in a car accident caused by a student from a school under the Tolleson Unified School

District. Barbara Collette attempted to sue the school for the damages caused by their student but

the court favored the school, saying “We therefore must determine whether to recognize a legal

relationship between appellants and the District that gives rise to a duty.” as the court was unable

to find a connection between the student’s action and the responsibility of the school. Despite

ruling in the school’s favor in Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, the court may

actually rule in the Knight’s favor. There can be a connection found between the responsibility of

the school and the action of the Ray Knight; the school’s procedure is to give the parents a
Portfolio Three: Tort and Liability
2

mailed and telephone notification which they failed to do. Because of this, the school is, at the

very least in part, responsible for the accident that occurred to Ray Knight.

Another case the court can look at to favor the Knights is Goss v. Lopez. In a quick

rundown, this case involves a number of high school students who were suspended from school

up to ten days without a hearing so they decided to sue the school as they were denied due

process. The court ruled in the student's’ favor as the school did not provide an appropriate way

for the students to defend themselves and weren’t ”Given oral or written notice of the charges.”

Unlike the students in the Goss v. Lopez case, Ray Knight was given “written notice” of his

suspension and any possible chance to fight it. Instead of fighting it, Knight opted to instead

throw away the notice and didn’t tell his parents about it. Because his actions would act as a

refusal to fight against his suspension, the school would not be held accountable for what

happened to him during his suspension.

In conclusion, taking all these court cases into account, the court would rule in favor

mostly of the parents. The school had failed to follow it’s own procedure that it had set forth to

prevent accidents like this, therefore they should be held responsible in large portion for their

inactions. However, despite the school being mostly at fault, the Knight family would have to

partially take some responsibility as well as Ray Knight was in part responsible for informing his

parents about his suspension. In the end, the court would discuss comparative negligence and

place a large portion of the blame on the schools

Portfolio Three: Tort and Liability
2

References

Bonamico v. City of Middletown, 1999 Conn. Super. Ct. 7333 (1999).

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, 203 Ariz. 359 (2002).

Goss v, Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975).

Tackett v. Pine Richland School District, 793 A.2d 1022 (2002).