Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 1

Artifact # 3

Tort and Liability

McKenna Gault

College of Southern Nevada

April 12, 2020

Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 2

There was a middle school student by the name of Ray Knight who was suspended from

school. This was a three-day suspension caused by many unexcused absences. This action was

not the normal protocol that schools would take, instead they would give a phone call and written

note home to is parent or guardian. The school never followed through with this procedure,

instead they only sent home a note with the student, Ray, and did not even send it in the mail like

the protocol requires. The student threw it away as any student would and so the parents were not

aware of the three-day suspension. During the duration of the suspension, Ray Knight went to

visit a friend at their home and was tragically shot and it is now up for discussion if the school

should be held liable for this event.

There are two court cases that the school can use as a defense against the liability claims

the parents of Ray Knight hope to charge them with. In 1985, the case of “Rollins v. Concordia

Parish School Board” is about a fourth-grade students named Lisa Rollins who was playing on a

merry-go-round during her PE class and fractured her leg. There was a substitute teacher, Mrs.

Green, who interacted with the girls on the merry-go-round when she noticed that it was spinning

out of control. She told the girls, including Lisa, to try and slow it down. All of a sudden, Mrs.

Green was speaking with other students when she heard the girls yelling that Lisa was hurt. The

court found the school board negligent in not properly watching all of the students and what they

were doing on the playground, but part blame also went to Lisa. The blame was 50/50 between

her and the school because the teacher did warn her to try and prevent the incident, however she

did not listen. The 1985“Rollins v. Concordia Parish School Board” case could be a defense for

the school because in the charges against the Knights because Ray Knight was aware of the

suspension and deliberately did not tell his parents and threw away the notice from the school.
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 3

He did this so he could get away with going to his friend’s house without his parents being aware

of his whereabouts.

The second court case that would help the school not face liability charges would be the

1992 case “Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District”. This case was about a gang-

related shooting that involved a high school student by the name of Ernest P. Brownell. The

shooting did not occur on the campus, but near it after school was out for the day. The school

took precautions to try and minimize gang related problems happening but was not aware of the

event of the shooting until after it happened. The court saw that the school could not be held

accountable because it was an unforeseeable event. It also was not on the campus grounds and so

even though it was a student from that school, it was not linked to the school. The 1992 case,

“Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District” would favor the school districts side of this

case because the school did try to warn the parents of Ray Knight of his suspension and from

there it was up to the student the deliver that news to his parents. The school was also unable to

prevent the tragic outcome that happened to Ray Knight at his friend’s house that day.

On the defense for the Knight family, there are two court causes that would help find the

school district liable for the outcome of their child. In the first case, “Flanagan v. Canton

Central School District” a fifth grader named Brendan Flanagan was in the boys’ locker room at

school when he was pushed from behind. When he was pushed, he fell and hit his head on a

nearby locker that resulted in him going to the emergency room to have his spleen removed. The

incident occurred with no teacher present in the locker room because they were in the gym

speaking with a different student. The Flanagan mother felt that her son’s injury was caused by

negligence on behalf of the teacher who was supposed to be watching them. The courtroom

decided that “although a school has a duty to adequately supervise its students, it is not an insurer
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 4

of those students’ safety” (Flanagan v. Canton, 2009). The school should only be responsible for

injuries that they are aware of happening but in the “Flanagan v. Canton Central School

District” case, they ruled in favor of the student’s mother. The students were not getting along

before the incident and so the teacher should have been there in order to prevent such an incident

from occurring. The Knight family could use this as a justification to hold the school liable for

their son’s death. The school should have followed the correct procedures of contacting the

parents via phone call and also mailing the notice so that the parent could have received it

directly. In both of these cases, the school put unwavering trust in students without going the

extra mile of looking out and being responsible like a school should be because they are still

children who make mistakes.

The second court case that would justify the liability charges that the Knight family

would like to make against the school district would be “Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School

District” of 1978. The case involved a ten-year-old named Michael Hoyem who left his

elementary school without permission before the end of the school day. He was a couple of

blocks away when he was hit and injured by a motorcyclist. The family decided to bring the case

to court for negligent supervision on behalf of the school. The court ruled that the school had a

responsibility to give an appropriate amount of supervision to keep all of the students on the

grounds while school is in session and prevent off campus injuries from occurring. The 1978

case of “Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District” would help the Knight family

because, like Michael, Ray’s school should have given the suspension notifications to the parents

directly so that the situation was handled appropriately. Schools and parents are supposed to

work together for the well-being of these students so that they succeed and when communication

is broken it leads to bad results.

Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 5

In the case of the Knights and the school, I feel the majority of the responsibility falls on

Ray Knight not giving the correct information to his parents. Thus, the parents do not have a

strong enough position to pursue liability charges against the school officials. The school did not

do all of the notifications that they should do to get the notice of suspension to the parent.

Although, based on Ray’s poor judgement to dispose of the notice, the school cannot control that

as well as control Ray’s movements off campus. Even though the school did not perform the

proper notifications, this event would have likely still happened. The school should not be liable

for Ray’s actions off of the school grounds because they had no foreseeable idea this could have

happened.
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 6

Reference Page

Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992). Retrieved April 07, 2020, from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1770049.html

Flanagan v. Canton Central School District (2009). Retrieved April 07, 2020, from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1257072.html

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978). Retrieved April 07, 2020, from

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2615936/hoyem-v-manhattan-beach-city-sch-dist/

Rollins v. Concordia Parish School Board, Failure to Supervise School Playground Merry-Go-

Round, (1985). Retrieved April 07, 2020, from

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1726913/rollins-v-concordia-parish-school-bd/