School Law Portfolio Artifact #3 1

School Law Portfolio Artifact #3

Mackenzie Melnar

College of Southern Nevada

School Law Portfolio Artifact #3 2

School Law Portfolio Artifact #3

The word tort is defined as “a violation of a duty that causes harm” (Underwood, 2006

p.99). There is such a thing as an unintentional tort where “an individual is held responsible for

all the results of his or her actions” regarding negligence and liability (Underwood). In one

scenario, a school was required to give notice to the parents or guardians of a student’s

suspension by phone and mail, but they only sent a note home with the student, who threw it

away. During this student’s first day of suspension, he was shot while at a friend’s house. Since

the student’s parents were not informed of their child’s suspension, they feel they have enough

grounds to pursue a tort claim against the school. On the other hand, the school does have a few

defenses, and may be able to fire back and hold their ground just as well.

Ray Knight, a middle school student, accumulated too many unexcused absences. Instead

of arranging a parent/teacher conference, the school decided to suspend the student and only

attempted to notify his parents by sending a note home with him. It has been stated that “at a

minimum, due process requires some kind of notice and some kind of hearing before suspension

of students from public school” (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). The student is a minor, his parents or

guardians should be given notice prior to any suspension. Without notifying the parents

whatsoever of the suspension, or the absences that led to the suspension, the parents can claim

negligence on the schools’ part for that fact alone.

In this case, Ray was shot while on this suspension that his parents didn’t even know

about. Now, “to prevail on a claim of negligence, the plaintiff must show: 1) that there was a

duty owed to the plaintiff by defendant; 2) defendants breached that duty by allowing their

conduct to fall below the applicable standard of care; and 3) compensable injury proximately

caused by the defendant’s breach of duty” (King v. Northeast Security Inc., 2003). It can be
School Law Portfolio Artifact #3 3

easily shown through the facts that 1) the school owed a duty to the parents of providing them

the information about their son’s absences and suspension, 2) the school failed to provide

adequate notice to the parents even though there is a procedure in place to prevent that failure,

and 3) there was a physical injury to the student while on suspension from school. The parents

definitely have a strong claim of negligence against the school.

On the other hand, “the school board had no duty to safeguard a child’s wellbeing after

the child leaves the school property” (SJ v. Lafayette Parish School Bd., 2010). Since the

incident occurred outside of school property, it cannot be the school’s fault that the student was

shot. In this argument, questions regarding the parents’ involvement in their child’s education

may be raised. The school board may be able to turn the case onto the parents’ negligence, but

that may not hold up if it is proven that the student was continually lying to his parents.

A liability is when one party is held responsible for another party’s injury. But it’s been

stated that “the liability of the school board and its employees for injuries to students exists only

when the school board has actual custody of the students entrusted to their care” (Jackson v.

Colvin, 1998). This means that the parents may not have a liability charge against the school

because the incident did not occur when the student was at school. However, as far as the parents

were concerned, their child was attending school, since they never received notice of suspension.

In court, it is most likely that the ruling will be against the school, if not for liability, then

for negligence. It is clear that the school failed to perform their duty to the parents in this case

and this breach of duty will be regarded as negligence more so than the parents’ possible

negligence for lack of involvement.

School Law Portfolio Artifact #3 4

References

Goss v. Lopez, 419 US 565 (1975)

Jackson v. Colvin, 732 So. 2d 530 (La. App. 3 Cir. 1998)

King v. Northeast Security Inc., 790 N.E.2d 474, 484 (Ind. 2003)

S.J. v. Lafayette Parish School Bd., 2009-C-2195 (La. Sup Ct. 2010)

Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.