Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 5

Portfolio Artifact #3 1

Artifact #3

Tort and Liability

Stanley Koslowski

College of Southern Nevada

April 14th, 2018

Portfolio Artifact #3 2

Middle school district policies require telephone notifications and a written notice by

mail to a student’s parents when their child is suspended. Ray Knight was a middle school

student who was suspended for three days due to his unexcused absences. The school did not call

the parents and gave the parents a notice by the student, who threw it away. This made it to

where Ray’s parents no idea he was suspended because the notice was thrown away and there

was no telephone contact. During the first day of Ray’s suspension he was visiting a friend’s

house and was accidently shot. Ray’s parents are trying to pursue liability charges against the


My first case in support of Ray’s parents is Jerkins v Anderson and the Pleasantville

Board of Education. (2007) This case involved a 9-year-old boy who was hit by a car when

school ended but there was an early dismissal that day. The child’s parents usually walk the kid

home were not notified that the school day ended early and claimed that the school did notify

them of the early dismissal. The Appellate Division found that a duty on the part of the school

district is to exercise care for the students and requires the school districts to adopt and comply

with a reasonable dismissal supervision policy. They have to provide adequate notice to the

parents of students before the early dismissal happens and to make sure parents and guardians

know their kids are getting out early. This case supports Ray’s parents because the school was

negligent in caring for the students by not letting the parents know the kids were out early. The

breach of duty of the school to not properly notify parents of the early dismissal and in the case

of Ray they did not properly notify the parents of the suspension.

My second case in support of Ray’s parents is Perna v Conejo Valley Unified School

District. (1983) In this case two students who usually walked home after school were asked to

stay and help a teacher grade papers. Their route home required them to cross an intersection
Portfolio Artifact #3 3

where a crossing guard was employed. The crossing guard was off om this particular day at 2:45

PM and the students got to the intersection at 3:15 PM. As the students were crossing the

intersection they were hit by a car and sustained injuries. The case stated that the negligence of

the teacher and school regarding the students and the fact that by the teacher asking them to stay

till 3 while knowing there would not be a crossing guard after 2:45 led to the students getting hit.

The students were still on school property when the negligence was committed and led to the

students being in the intersection with no crossing guard. In this case it supports Ray’s parents

because while Ray was on school property the school showed negligence by not contacting his

parents or sending the suspension letter in the mail. They did not do what they were supposed to

do, and it led to Ray being where he was on that day. If they know about his suspension, then he

possibly wouldn’t have been at a friend’s house the next day because he was suspended. Ray’s

parents have a case against the school district because they showed negligence while he was on

campus and did not properly notify the parents of the student.

My first case in arguing against Ray’s parents is Collette v Tolleson Unified High School

District. (2002) In the case a high school student was killed, and others were injured in a car

accident that happened off campus. They tried to argue that the school showed negligence by

allowing the students to leave campus for lunch and not enforcing their closed-campus policy.

The school district fought that it has no duty to protect against injuries that were caused by a

third-party off campus. The school had no duty to protect the students on their lunchtime

accident and the court ruled in favor of the school district in this case. Concerning Ray’s parents,

the injury occurred off campus and by a third party, so the school should not have been

responsible for what happened. Ray was accidently shot at a friend’s house while being

suspended so the school was not held liable if it sees the case as the one above.
Portfolio Artifact #3 4

My second case in arguing against Ray’s parents is Glaser v Emporia Unified School

District. (2001) In this case a student was running from another student and was struck by a car.

The students name was Todd and he ran off of school grounds and into a public street and was

hit by a car at the beginning of the school day. The student wasn’t on school property when the

incident happened and was ran off of the school property by another student which is why the

incident happened. The school district won the case because it was ruled that the school doesn’t

take responsibilities for students before school and outside of school premises. In the Ray Knight

incident, he never went to school and wasn’t on school property, so they shouldn’t have to take

responsibility for what happened to Ray.

I think that in the case of Ray Knight the court should side with his parents. The school

district didn’t contact the parents letting them know their son was suspended and this led to the

student not getting in trouble with his parents and being at his friend’s house the next day. The

student most likely would have been in trouble with his parents and they wouldn’t have allowed

him to leave the house to hangout. The school has a responsibility to the student and to the

parents to make sure they are giving the personal care to the student. They showed negligence by

not sending the suspension to the parents through the mail and by not calling them to let them

know he was getting suspended. This led to the student being accidently shot and Ray’s parents

seeking some sort of liability charges against the school.

Portfolio Artifact #3 5

FindLaw's California Court of Appeal case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from


FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from


FindLaw's Supreme Court of Kansas case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2018, from


FindLaw's Supreme Court of New Jersey case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2018,

from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/nj-supreme-court/1491353.html