Running head: Artifact #5 !

Artifact #5
Leah Findlay

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact #5 !2

Abstract

This essay discusses the case between Ray and the school district. There are also pros and

cons of similar situations to Ray’s that deal with tort, liability, and negligence.
Artifact #5 !3

Artifact #5

Ray Knight was a middle school student who had a number on unexcused absences.

Because of these absences he was sent home with a note on a 3 day suspension, even though the

school district has a telephone and mail procedure for all suspended students. The next day Ray

went over to a friend’s house and was accidentally shot. There is debate who would be liable

because Ray’s parents were unaware of his suspension.

School’s are liable for students safety and wellbeing throughout the entire day. When

students are not supposed to be at school because of a suspension the district has to provide a

telephone call home and a letter mailed home at the minimum. When school districts fail to do

this it is considered negligence. The district neglected to contact the parents directly and relied

on the student. Students getting suspended, especially middle schoolers, are likely not to tell their

parents in fear of getting punished. A tort is a civil wrong that leads in someone getting in hurt or

trouble. The schools neglecting to contact parents could lead to a tort.

A case that sides with Ray’s is Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School. This case deals

with a 7 year old boy named Andrew. Andrew got off his bus stop after school with his friend

Steven because they were heading to Steven’s house. When walking home a student that had

threatened to beat Andrew up after school started chasing him. While the boy was chasing him,

Andrew crossed a busy street, and was struck by a car. Andrew had permanent brain and spinal

injuries. Andrew’s parents sued the school district saying the school should discharge the
Artifact #5 !4

students at a safer location, not an intersection well known for being busy. Andrew won the suit

because the school was negligent when choosing a stop for the bus stop.

Another case that sides with Ray is Goss v. Lopez. In this case nine students were

suspended for ten days for disrupting their learning environment. The school did not notify

parents, and so the parents decided to sue. The students won because the school had not hearing

for them before they were suspended. This violates the 14th amendment because all students are

entitled due process. Students also need to be given some kind of notice when being suspended.

This case is very similar to Ray’s situation because both Ray and the nine boys were suspended

without any official warning. Ray did get a note but that was it and did not meet the requirements

of the school district.

Pistolese v. William Floyd Union Free District was a case that was not in favor of the

student. A student was walking home from school with friends and was assaulted. The incident

happened on the freeway about thirty minutes after leaving campus, and the student was walking

home rather than riding the bus. Pistolese then sued the district. The district won the suit because

they were not on campus, the student was not riding the bus, and the school had no control over

what was happening in the moment.

Another case that ended up with the school winning the case, was Sanford v. Stiles. A

student named Karen Martin dated another student named Michael Sanford for a brief period of

time. The couple had been broken up for awhile and Karen was now dating a student named

Ryan. One day Karen got a note from Michael and in the note he said, “I've heard 3 diff[erent]

stories about you & Ryan. The one I heard almost made me want to go kill myself. “(Findlaw).

Karen turned the note into the guidance counselor because she wanted Michael to leave her alone
Artifact #5 !5

and she didn’t think he would actually hurt himself but she wanted to be safe. When confronted

by the counselor, Pamela Stiles, Michael said he was fine and convinced her that the note was

from months ago. Stiles asked series of questions and talked to Michael and decided he showed

no suicidal ideations. On December 4, 2002 Michael came up to Stiles office, and she invited

him in. Michael did not decline or accept and just asked if a “blonde haired girl” gave her the

note. Stiles told Michael she could not reveal that information to him and all Michael said was,

 “thanks, I thought that's what you would say. That's all I needed.” (Findlaw). Later that day

Michael’s mom had told him to clean the kitchen, when she went looking for him he had hung

himself in his room. The school and Stiles were not liable in this case because no one including

Michael’s mother knew that he was suicidal. The school tried to take action but Michael

convinced them that he was fine, so they thought there was no issue.

If I had to make the final say of who was liable in Ray’s case I believe it should be the

school. In the cases I mentioned earlier that were cons of Ray’s situation, in those cases the

school either tried to take action or just had no control of the outcome of a situation at all. In this

case the school did the bare minimum by only sending a notice with a middle school student. The

school should have gotten through to the parents and sent a letter in the mail before releasing

him. Although Ray should have given his parent the note and should have stayed home from his

suspension, the school should have prepared for a preteen being capable of this and could have

been a little smarter. If the school is no longer being liable for a student because of a suspension,

they need to let the parents know so they can be liable of their children.
Artifact #5 !6

References

FindLaw's United States Third Circuit case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://

caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1380734.html

Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved May 2, 2018, from https://www.oyez.org/cases/

1974/73-898

Pistolese v. William Floyd Union Free District (2009).

Sandford v. Stiles (2006).

Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District (1999).