Portfolio # 3: Tort and Liability 1

Jaqueline Arguelles-Perez

College of Southern Nevada, EDU 210

Dr. Dale B. Warby

February 18, 2019

Portfolio # 3: Tort and Liability 2

Ray Knight is a middle school student that received a suspension due to his unexcused

absences. The school district’s procedures require a phone call to the parent to notify them and

a prompt written notice by mail to his parents as well; however, the only thing done for

notification to the parents of this particular suspension is a note being sent home with the

student. Knight throws the note away, and due to that action, his parents are unaware that he is

suspended. The first day of his suspension, Knight is accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s

house.

After assessing the scenario, Tort law is what this scenario is related to, “A tort is a civil

wrong, a violation of duty, that causes harm” (Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D., 2006). Both

parties must be heard to make a verdict whether the compensation should be made or if the

school district is to be held at fault.

To prove that Ray’s parents have the right to pursue liability charges we can review

(Eisel v. Board of Education., 324 Md. 376 (1991). In this case, two school counselor’s

negligence caused a failure to communicate with the student’s parents of their suicidal

statements to other classmates. This case was ruled in favor of the student because the counselors

had “a duty to use reasonable means to prevent suicide when they are on notice”. In this

situation, we see that the counselors did not fulfill the policy even though they saw a student

having suicidal thoughts. The counselors were to inform the students' parents of these thoughts

just as the school should have followed the policies in Knight's case.

The other case I thought could contribute to Knight's parent's side is (King v. Northeast

Security, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. 2003). After some incidents, a school decides to hire a

security agency to keep things under control on school grounds, but the security agency fails to

pursue its procedures. In result, a student is brutally attacked. The outcome of the trial was “In
Portfolio # 3: Tort and Liability 3

this appeal, we hold that a school district is not immune from a claim that the district failed to

take reasonable steps to provide security for people on the premises. We further hold that a

security service employed by a school district may be liable for negligence in carrying out its

contractually assumed obligations.” In this case, the incident is due to the negligence of the

security services in pursuing their procedures. Just as in ours is the office for not notifying

Knight's parents with their methods.

In a further evaluation, the previous cases that support the School District’s side are

stated in the next two paragraphs. The first being the 2006 case of (Sanford v. Stiles., 456 F.3d

298,303 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006). Sanford v. Stiles occurred when Michael Carr had given an ex-

girlfriend a note on November 26th, 2002, where he mentioned killing himself. The ex-girlfriend

was concerned for him and took the letter to the office. The letter was given to his counselor,

Pamela Stiles, she then set up a meeting with Carr where she spoke with him as a means of

determining whether he did, in fact, seem suicidal. Stiles ended up talking with him on two

separate occasions and both times did not see him as being suicidal. She did not refer him to the

psychiatrist; He committed suicide on December 4th, 2002. His mother filed suit against Stiles

and the school district. The district court ruled that Sanford’s claims failed. It could not be

proved that Stiles had created the danger to Carr. Also, the District Court rejected the state law

negligence claim against Stiles because Sanford could not prove causation under tort law and

because Stiles was entitled to immunity under Pennsylvania law (Sanford v. Stiles., 456 F.3d

298,303 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006). The School District in Knight v. School District can use this case

because the issue surrounding the student had been addressed. In Sanford v. Stiles, Carr had a

meeting with his counselor, and in Knight v. School District the school did send notice home

with him. In Knight’s case, it was his personal choice not to give his parents the announcement
Portfolio # 3: Tort and Liability 4

of his suspension and even further to go to his friend’s house. In line with the fact that it was

Michael Carr’s choice to commit suicide instead of talking about his issues with the counselor or

his friends and family. The schools did nothing to persuade or encourage either of those choices

made by the students.

The second case for supporting the School District is the 2002 case of (Collette v.

Tolleson Unified School District., 54 P.3d 828 (2002). Collette v. Tolleson occurred when

Zachary Thomason, a student at Westview High School, left school during lunch without

permission. The high school had a policy in which particular students with good grades and

parental consent could go off campus for a 50-minute lunch break. Thomason was not one of

those students and was spoken to by one of the school guards about not leaving campus. Upon

returning to campus Thomason caused a car accident in which the plaintiffs were injured. The

plaintiffs claim that the District, by its policy, had a duty to protect the general public from the

negligent driving of students who left campus. Second, they argue that the District created an

unreasonable risk of harm to the motoring public by placing rigid time constraints on student

lunch breaks. The court found that there is no common law duty to control the conduct of a third

person to prevent harm from occurring another. In regard to creating unreasonable risk,

Thomason had done nothing on school grounds before the accident to hinder his driving abilities

nor did the time restraint become relevant because the time limit was not a voluntary limitation,

but one that had been previously enforced. The court ruled in favor of the School District in the

case (Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District., 54 P.3d 828 (2002). The School District in

the Knight v. School District case can use this particular case to support its side by stating that

there is no duty for them to protect the student when not on school grounds. There was no way

the school could have anticipated that Thomason’s driving would result in an accident and injure
Portfolio # 3: Tort and Liability 5

others. Nor is there a way to anticipate that Ray Knight would be shot while on suspension.

Showing there is no fault from the School District. Also, something worthy of mentioning when

reviewing all of these cases is comparative negligence. This is a perfect point in which the courts

could use comparative negligence in their decision with the Knight v. School District case. Since

Knight had been the one to go to his friend’s house instead of staying home during his duration

of the suspension, the factor that his own choices and actions lead to his injury needs to be

accounted for.

In the case Knight v. School District, the responsibility would, in my opinion, most likely

be that of the school district because of the policy for suspension not being followed. I believe

that Ray Knight’s parents do have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against the

school. This being because the school district did not follow the policy and should be held

responsible for the safety of the student as long as the parents can prove the negligence of the

school, they could probably win the case. The court will rule in favor of the parent's defense,

policies are written to protect everyone involved. If someone does not follow the policies, then

they need to accept the consequences. Unfortunately, in this case maybe if the school would have

followed the procedures, Knight would have been at home or under the care of someone and

would not have been shot.

Portfolio # 3: Tort and Liability 6

References

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District., 54 P.3d 828 (2002).

https://www.leagle.com/decision/200288254p3d8281875

Eisel v. Board of Education., 324 Md. 376 (1991)

http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/02/eisel-v-board-of-education-of.html

King v. Northeast Security, Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474 (Ind. 2003)

https://www.theindianalawyer.com/articles/42368-coa-stage-collapses-not-foreseeable-as-a-

matter-of-law

Sanford v. Stiles., 456 F.3d 298,303 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006)

https://www.casemine.com/judgement/us/5914b503add7b0493476fd25#p303

Underwood, J. and Webb, L.D. (2005). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and

Applications. New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.