Running head: ARTIFACT 3 1

Artifact 3: Tort and Liability

Raquelin Galvez

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT 3 2

Artifact 3: Tort and Liability

This court case scenario deals with a middle school student and the parents pursuing

charges against the school for his death. The student was Ray Knight and he was suspended from

school for three days because of unexcused absences. The school district requires that the school

notify the parents by telephone and a written notice sent through the mail. The school did not

follow school district procedures and did neither of those things. Instead, the school gave the

student a notice to give to his parents, but he threw it away. Therefore, his parents did not know

that he had been suspended from school. While Ray Knight was suspended, he was accidentally

shot while on his way to a friend’s house. Due to all this, the parents are pursuing liability

charges against the school officials.

A court case supporting the parents in pursuing liability charges is, Eisel v. Board of

Education (Md. 1991). In the case mentioned the court found two counselors negligent in not

communicating to a parent about their student’s suicidal statement. The court ruled that the

counselors had a duty to use reasonable means to prevent a suicide if they knew about it.

Although this case does not deal with suicide, it has to do with the school staff failing to

correctly communicate to a parent about their child’s issues. Yes, they sent a letter home with the

student, but they did not follow school district procedures. The school did not make an effort to

try and inform the parents of their child’s suspension. They gave the note to the student knowing

that there could be a chance he wouldn’t give it to his parents.

Another case supporting the parents is, Haynesworth v. DH Stevens Co. (D.C 1994). This

case shows us what the elements of negligence are and in the case of Ray Knight they are

present. The first element of negligence is duty and the school had a duty to inform the parents

about their child’s suspension under school district procedure. They did not send a letter home or
ARTIFACT 3 3

contact the parents by phone. Therefore, this duty was breached. The parents were unaware of

their child’s suspension when he was shot so this makes a causal connection between the

negligent conduct and the resulting injury. If the parents had been correctly notified of their

child’s suspension then they would have been aware of his whereabouts, and possibly preventing

him getting shot. Lastly, there was an actual injury that resulted from the school’s negligence.

Therefore, this case supports Ray Knight’s parents by showing that negligence did happen here.

A case against the parents is Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (Kan.2001). In

this case the court decided that the school district could not be held responsible for the student’s

injuries because the school had no duty to supervise the student when they were not on school

grounds. Since, the student was not on school grounds then they were not under the custody of

the school. The same goes for the situation in this case. The student was shot outside of the

school grounds and was not in custody of the school. Even though the school did not let the

parents know about Ray Knight’s suspension correctly they still tried. Therefore, the school

assumed that the parents knew about the suspension and since he was suspended the school had

nothing to do with him getting shot. Also, since he was suspended, he was completely under the

parent’s responsibility.

A second case against the parents is Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District (Ariz.

Ct. App. 1979). In this case the parents held the school liable for a student’s death, but the court

concluded that since there was no evidence that the school could have reasonably known that the

girl would get kidnapped and killed, they could not be held liable. The situation is similar in the

case of Ray Knight. The school could not reasonably predict that the student was going to get

shot while he was suspended. They couldn’t have possibly known that something like that was
ARTIFACT 3 4

going to happen. The student could have still gotten shot even if the parents knew about his

suspension. Therefore, the parents do not have liable charges against the school officials.

Based on the text and court cases I feel that the court will rule against the parents of Ray

Knight. Yes, the school did not inform the parents of the suspension correctly, but they did send a

notice with the student. Also, the incident happened outside of school grounds meaning that the

school had no responsibility over the student. Also, the school did not know that this was going

to happen and therefore, could not have prevented it. Yes, they did follow a procedure, but that

doesn’t mean they could be blamed for the student getting shot. In conclusion, the cases I used to

come up with this are Glaser v Emporia Unified School District (Kan. 2001) and Chavez v.

Tolleson Elementary School District (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979).

ARTIFACT 3 5

References

Chavez v. Tolleson Elementary School District, 595 P.2d 1017 (Ariz. Ct. App. 1979)

Eisel v Board of Education, 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991)

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, No. 253, 21 P.3d 573 (Kan. 2001)

Haynesworth v. DH Stevens Co., 645 A.2d 1095 (D.C 1994)