Running head: Artifact 3 1

Artifact 3 Tort and Liability

Gaby Antunez

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact 3 2

Artifact 3 Tort and Liability

Who is the one to blame? In this scenario we have a middle school student, Ray, who

became suspended from school. However, Ray never turned in the notification stating he was

suspended by the school to his parents, therefore they were not aware of this. The required

procedures most schools have include more than a letter sent home, it requires a phone call to

the parent or guardian. The day after Ray’s suspension he was shot during school hours while

visiting a friend when the parents thought he was at school. Let’s review as to who the fingers

will be pointed at and why.

In one court case where it rules in favor of the school would be Dalton v. Memminger. In

this case, a student had left the school grounds to smoke across the street. Upon returning the

student did not use the crosswalk instead “jaywalked” across the street and ended up getting

injured. The parents sued the school stating they were being negligent in protecting their

students, however, the court ruled that once the student leaves the premises of the school, the

school is no longer responsible for that student.

Another court case that would agree with the school district would be a case similar to

the one before: Molina v. Conklin. In this court case a student had left soccer practice and was

almost home when she realized she forgot her belongings, going back she was hit by a car. The

parents sued against the school stating “released her into a potentially hazardous situation that

posed a foreseeable harm”. The court once again ruled that the school is not “A school is not an
Artifact 3 3

insurer of the safety of its students”. These two court cases both basically, to put it bluntly,

wipe their hands clean of the students once they are off the premises.

However, there are other court cases where the school could have done more and

better in order to prevent harm from happening. In one scenario would be S.J. et al. v.

LAFAYETTE PARISH SCHOOL BOARD. In this unfortunate case, a 12 year old was sexually

assaulted walking home from an after school program even though the mother had specifically

notified the school that she was not to be released to walk home. The school called and the

mother did not pick up so the student walked home in a dangerous neighborhood leading to

the attack. This could have been prevented had the staff attempted to put her on the after

school buses or waiting until the mother showed up.

A case where it favors with the student/parents would be MITCHELL v. CEDAR RAPIDS

COMMUNITY SCHOOL DISTRICT. A special ed freshman student had ditched sixth period with

another special ed student senior where the freshman got raped. D.E, (freshman student) had

an IEP based on her needs so when her teacher Ms. Biedenbach noticed they were missing

from her class she made no action to seek them out, resulting in no supervision when the two

students left the premises and the incident occurred. Had Ms. Biedenbach done more and

attempted to seek them out, contact their parents and more it could have been prevented.

After reviewing these court cases, it was difficult to come up with a conclusion based on

the fact that while it is true once the student leaves the school premises, the school is no longer

responsible for the students. On another note, if they notice the students are missing or if they

(in our case) are suspended, sending a letter home instead of doing the actual procedure of

calling and sending the letter, is not enough. The school should have attempted to get in
Artifact 3 4

contact with the parents to notify them of their child’s suspension so the parents could know

where their child will be at the next morning and why. With that being said, I believe the

parents have defensible grounds to go against the school district with the court in their favor.
Artifact 3 5

References

DALTON v. MEMMINGER. (n.d.). Retrieved from https://casetext.com/case/dalton-v-

memminger.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. “MOLINA v. CONKLIN | 57 A.D.3d

860 (2008) | 20081229152.” Leagle, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth

Circuit.https://Leagle.com/Images/Logo.png, 23 Dec. 2008,

www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20081229152.

“FindLaw's Court of Appeal of Louisiana Case and Opinions.” Findlaw,

caselaw.findlaw.com/la-court-of-appeal/1422367.html.

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. “MOLINA v. CONKLIN | 57 A.D.3d

860 (2008) | 20081229152.” Leagle, United States Court of Appeals, Sixth

Circuit.https://Leagle.com/Images/Logo.png, 23 Dec. 2008,

www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20081229152.