Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY 1

Tort and Liability

Jeffery Urbina

College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Abstract

School should make sure parents always know if there kids are in any type of trouble.

However schools can only do so much. If a student is sneaky enough to hide notes sent home

with them informing their parents of their suspension and they don’t show their parents and are

hurt during the suspension who is responsible? How many actions do school need to inform the

students parents? Do parents have to be more on top of what is going on with their children? The

case of Ray Knight answers these questions by looking at previously similar cases we will be

able to have an idea what way the judge would lean to.
TORT AND LIABILITY 3

Introduction

Ray Knight is a middle school student with a number of unexcused absences. Due to his

unexcused absences he was suspended for 3 days. The school is suppose to call and send a notice

by mail. The school sent a notice with the student to give to his parents however, the student

threw the notice away. Ray’s parents had no idea he was suspended. On Ray’s first day of

suspension he went over to a friends house. While visiting his friend Ray was shot.

There are many laws and policy’s that will factor in the decision of the case. The first being

Tort. Tort is a a civil wrong, Torts may cause injury to another person. Torts can be on accident

or intentional. Secondly liability, liability deals with who is in charge and should take

responsibility. Next is negligence, negligence is failure to use reasonable care, resulting in

damage or injury to another. Another factor is school district/foreseeability is being able to

predict an action will result in the injury.

A case in favor of Ray Knight’s parents is the case of Goss v. Lopez. The case centered

on Dwight Lopez and eight other students from various public schools. The students were

suspended for 10 days for misconduct. However, None of the students had been given a hearing

or went through due process, which requires prior notice and an opportunity to be heard

(britannica.com).This can work for Ray’s parents as they were not informed properly or given an

opportunity for the school to explain to the parents why Ray was being suspended.

The next case in favor of Ray and his parents is the case of Warrington v. Tempe. In this

particular case, Andrew got off the school bus with his friend, Steven, at the bus stop near the

intersection of 41st Street and Southern Avenue. As they began to walk to Steven's house,

Michael, a boy who had earlier threatened to beat up Andrew, began to chase Andrew.
TORT AND LIABILITY 4

Believing that he was going to be beaten up, Andrew ran off the sidewalk, across a frontage road,

and onto Southern Avenue. He was struck by a car and suffered severe and permanent brain and

spinal injuries. The court saw that the location of the bus stop was a foreseeable danger to the

students since the students were very young ( caselaw.findlaw.com). The way this case benefits

Ray is that since the school did not take the right steps to inform the parents. The situation

becomes one of foreseeable danger.

A case in favor of the school is the case of Pistolese v. Wm Flyd. In this case on the last

day of the school year, a student was assaulted by other students, as he walked home from school

with friends rather than ride a school bus. The courts decided that the incident occurred at a time

when the injured plaintiff was no longer in the school’s custody or under its control and was,

thus, outside of the orbit of its authority ( leagle.com). The way this favors the school is that

since Ray made it home after he was suspended and the incident occurred off the schools zone,

Ray’s parents should have been responsible for him.

Another argument in favor of the school is contributory negligence vs comparative

negligence. comparative negligence, when both a plaintiff and a defendant are guilty of

negligence. contributory negligence barred a plaintiff in a personal injury action from recovering

damages if he was in any way responsible for an accident ( Philipslawoffces.com). Since the

majority of the reason for the parents not finding out about Ray’s suspension was Ray’s fault and

Ray was the one to put himself in that situation to be shot. The school is less responsible for what

happened.

Between Ray and his parents vs the school I believe the courts will side with the school.

Since the school did send a notice even if it wasn’t the right one it doesn’t change the fact that

Ray threw it away. In addition Ray was the one to put himself in that situation by going over to
TORT AND LIABILITY 5

his friends house while being suspended. The school does have a duty to insure student’s safety,

however, since the incident occurred out of the school zone and the filling day of his suspension

Ray’s care becomes responsibility of the parents.

TORT AND LIABILITY 6

References

ANTHONY PISTOLESE et al., Respondents, v. WILLIAM FLOYD UNION FREE DISTRICT,

Appellant.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York, Second Department.

Decided January 19, 2010.

Plaintiffs-Appellees, v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 3,

Defendant-Appellant.

No. 1 CA-CV 98-0537.

Decided: September 16, 1999

U.S. Supreme Court

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

Goss v. Lopez

No. 73-898

Argued October 16, 1974

TORT AND LIABILITY 7

Decided January 22, 1975

Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence

Accessed May 02, 2018

URL: https://www.phillipslawoffices.com/firmnews/personal-injury/comparative-

negligence-vs-contributory-negligence/