TORT AND LIABILITY

Tort And Liability

Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment Submission ( Portfolio Artifact # 3)

Sarah Kerschgens

EDU 210 Nevada School Law

Dr. Dale Warby

February 12, 2018

TORT AND LIABILITY
2

A case has been brought before the Courts regarding “Liability.”

The parents of a child who was suspended from middle school due to the fact that he had

repeatedly missed school unexcused. The boy in question Ray Knight was accidentally shot

while visiting a friends house while on suspension. The parents of the boy claim that they did

not know that their son has been suspended and therefore did not realize that he was not under

the schools supervision. The parents claim they should have been informed of their sons

suspension as required by school district procedures by telephone and also in writing. The

school in this case only sent a written notice, which Knights family claim they never received,

as their son threw it away. To remember in this case are the 4 Elements of Negligence.

1. Duty – The school had a duty to protect Knight from unreasonable risks

2. Breach – The duty was breached by the failure to exercise an appropriate standard of

care

3. Causation – There was a casual connection between the negligence conduct and the

resulting injury

4. Injury: An actual injury resulted

All four elements must be proven before the Knights can claim damages

In favor of Knights family pursing liability charges against the school is the fact

that Knight was obviously not able to act responsibly on his own. If Knight was constantly
TORT AND LIABILITY
3

missing school unexcused he was not mature enough to know the consequences of his actions

in the present and also for his future. To support this would be the case Mitchell v Cedar

Rapids Community School No. 12 – 0794 (2013). In this case a mother of a special education

student sued the school and won , as her daughter was sexually assaulted of campus and after

hours by another student. A jury found the school district negligent in failing to adequately

supervise the special education student and awarded damages.

Also in Knights families favor is the ruling Sutton v. Duplessis, 584 So.2d 362, 366

(La.Ct.App.1991) Here it was found that school authorities should have foreseen that the six-

year-old student might disobey instructions not to leave office, and thus school board was

liable for injuries sustained by student, who left school grounds after school, darted out into

street and ran into side of automobile, where student had been waiting for his mother to pick

him up in office with secretary. The same is to be said of Knight, the school should have

forseen that he might not give the suspension letter to his parents due to his past record of

playing truant and his immaturity.

In favor of the Middle School Knight was attending is the fact that duty of care is

a commonsense notion. The parents of Knight also have a responsibility towards their child.

The parents must ensure that their child attends school and that when he is not in school that

he is in a safe environment. If he was accidentally shot while at a friends house then this

obviously was not a safe environment. To support this is the case Kazanjian v. Sch. Bd. No. 
TORT AND LIABILITY
4

4D05-4371. (2007). Here a child that was truant was fatally killed in a car crash. Here the

School Board owed no duty to lessen the risk of such injuries by preventing high school

students from leaving campus without authorization. arguing it owed no duty to supervise a

truant student and, even if it did, a motor vehicle accident was not a foreseeable proximate

cause of any such breach. The same can be said of Knight, A shooting accident was not a

foreseeable proximate.

Also in favor of the Middle School is he theory that Knights truancy placed him

outside the district's custody and control thereby extinguishing any legal duty of supervision

owed to Knight. Even assuming that a duty of care to Knight existed on the day in question,

the School district can contend that is was not negligent and did not breach its duty. The

school can argue that any negligence on its part was superseded by the events leading up to

the shooting and thus , such negligence was not proximate cause of the accident. To support

this is the case Palella v. Ulmer 136 Misc.2d 34 (1987). Here a young girl was killed in a car

crash miles from the school while playing truant The court has found no precedent for the

proposition that a school district is responsible for an injury to a student which occurs off

school grounds except where such student was involved in a school sponsored or supervised

off-campus activities.
TORT AND LIABILITY
5

In conclusion, I feel that the parents of Ray Knight will not have defensible

grounds to pursue liability. Yes the school is guilty in one element of negligence; Breach, as it

did not exercise an appropriate standard of care in ensuring that Rays parents received

notification of his suspension but on the other 3 elements of Negligence, the school is not

responsible for Rays actions while being suspended from school. In this case the risks

associated with Rays activities were assumed by the student.

TORT AND LIABILITY
6

TORT AND LIABILTY

REFERENCES

Mitchell v. Cedars Rapid Community School District

Retrieved February 7, 2018

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1635949.html

Sutton v. Duplessis, 584 So.2d 362, 366 (La.Ct.App.1991)

Retrieved February 8, 2018

https://casetext.com/case/sutton-v-duplessis#!

Kazanjian v. Sch. Bd. No. 4D05-4371. (2007)

Retrieved February 8, 2018

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-appeal/1100429.html

Palella v. Ulmer 136 Misc.2d 34 (1987)

Retrieved February 8, 2018

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1987170136misc2d341165.xml

Elements of Negligence

Retrieved February 8,2018

School Law for Teachers, Underwood and Webb page 100.