Tort and Liability

Tort and Liability

Yasmin Reyes
Edu 210
Tort and Liability

Middle school student, Ray Knight was accidently shot when visiting a friend’s house.

This happened during school hours, but Knight was not there due to being suspended for too

many unexcused absences. His parents were not aware of this because the school simply sent

home a letter with Knight, who had disposed of it. The school did not follow protocol on

notifying suspensions to parents. As the school district required that school officials were to

immediately tell parents by telephone and by mail.

Parents have no choice but to trust that their children’s school will keep them safe for

eight hours a day. So, when a school fails to fulfill their duty, and the result is their child being

seriously injured, it is heartbreaking. Mr. and Mrs. Knight had to live through the trauma of their

child being shot by a gun. Now, this happened during school hours making the school liable.

Although, Knight was suspended at the time; the school failed to follow the given course of

action and notify his parents of said suspension. In a case from Louisiana, the court found a

school district liable for damages made to a student who burned himself using duplicating fluid

that the school failed to dispose of by procedure1. In this instance, the school failed to notify by

procedure. Instead they gave a child a letter to give to his parents. A letter that would surely get

him into trouble. So, as a child, why would he give it his parents? It is truly no surprise that he

disposed of the letter. The school is evidently liable for neglect, Knights medical expenses, and

for any emotional distress brought onto the victim.

In order to prove neglect, examination of the four elements individually is necessary. The

school had a duty to Mr. and Mrs. Knight. A duty to immediately and properly inform them of

their child’s suspension. Breach of duty was met when they failed to immediately and properly

inform the parents. In one case, a court found the school negligent for allowing a girl to leave

1 Brown v. Tesack (1990)

Tort and Liability

school property during school hours, where she was sexually assaulted during that time2. As the

incident happened during school hours, this school is also negligent. If the school had done its

job correctly, then the parents would have been aware of punishment, and Knight would not have

been at his friend’s house the next day. For this, they qualify for causation3. Finally, injury was

ultimately caused for their blatant negligence.

It is always an extremely sorrowful day when someone is injured in such a brutal way.

But should the school district be the one taking blame for this? Mr. Knight is at an age where he

has to begin to take more responsibility for his actions. It seems apparent that the school trusted

him enough to simply hand his parents a letter. Instead he chose not to do what he knew was the

right thing. He then proceeded to go into an unsafe environment. Therefore Mr. Knight assumed

the risk. In a case where a student rode on the back end of a car on school property, proceeded to

fall and injure himself, and attempt to sue the school. The court found the school not liable for

any injuries because the student assumed the risk of injury4. In this case, Mr. Knight put himself

into a situation of risk by going to hang out with people who engage in gun violence.

In another case, a California court found a Los Angeles School District not liable for a

gang-related shooting that happened off property grounds5. As the school could not foresee this

and also took precautions to help prevent gang violence. For this case, there was no way that the

school would have been able to predict the gun violence that took place off-grounds. Therefore,

they do not qualify for causation.

Conclusively, I believe that both parties are a little at fault. The Defendant certainly

should have followed such a simply procedure. That was pure laziness on their part. On the other
22: D.C. v. St. Landry Parish (2001)
3 School Law for Teachers; Underwood
4Cave v. Burt (2004)
5 Brownwell v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992)
Tort and Liability

hand, the victim is at an age where he knows the difference between right and wrong. He knew it

was wrong to not give his parents the letter. He also knew it was wrong to go over to a friend’s

house while suspended. Ultimately though, I would side with the victim. When it comes down to

it, he is still a minor who was to be protected by the school. They failed to protect him when they

failed to tell his parents. Now he has a serious injury, trauma from the event, and sky-high

medical bills. He and his parents deserve to be compensated.

Resources
Tort and Liability

1. Brown v. Tesack (1990)

2. D.C. v. St. Landry Parish (2001)
3. School Law for Teachers; Underwood
4. Cave v. Burt (2004)
5. Brownwell v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992)