Tort and Liability 1

Tort and Liability

Corey Sharpe

EDU 210

College of Southern Nevada

Tort and Liability 2

In this scenario, there is a middle school whose procedure when suspending a student is

to telephone the parents and send a written notice by mail. Ray Knight, a student at this middle

school, was suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. The only notice the school

gave about his suspension was a written notice that was given to Ray, which he threw away

making his parents unaware of his suspension. On his first day of suspension, Ray was shot

while visiting a friend. The question being asked is, do Ray’s parents have defensible grounds to

pursue liability charges against school officials? Let’s take a look at some court cases and see if

the school will be held liable or not.

First, let’s look at court cases which would support the parents. Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids

Community School District is a case where D.E., a special education student at Kennedy High

School called her mother, Leeann Mitchell, and asked to ride the bus to her friend, S.K.’s, house.

Mitchell gave the okay and expected to hear from D.E. around four that afternoon. D.E. and S.K.

left school after their fifth period class and skipped sixth period, despite not having permission.

Kennedy High had an automated system that would record unexcused absences and would notify

parents about which periods their child missed. This made it where the school didn’t have a

policy that required teachers to make personal calls to the parents. D.E. and S.K. met with other

friends, V.M., J.I., and M.F. M.F. raped D.E. Mitchell sued for negligence noting a breach of

duty of reasonable care. The jury’s verdict for D.E. found $500,000 in damages and apportioning

seventy percent fault to Kennedy and thirty percent to D.E. (1) This case would support the

parents in the scenario because the school failed to ensure that Knight’s parents were notified,

just as how Leeann Mitchell wasn’t notified which lead to D.E. being raped.
Tort and Liability 3

Our second case to support the parents is Brahatcek v. MILLARD SCH. DIST. David, a

14-year-old 9th grade student was injured during his physical education class when he was struck

by a golf club that was swung by a fellow student. David missed the physical education class that

taught the fundamentals, so when it was his turn to swing the golf club, he asked for help. Fellow

student, Mark Kreie, demonstrated how to swing. Kreie checked to make sure David was far

enough away for him to swing the club; however, when David moved closer when Kreie started

to swing, thus striking David in the head. Max Kurtz and Vickie Beveridge were the teachers in

the class. Mr. Kurtz was absent the day of the accident, leaving in charge Tim Haley who was a

student teacher who had only been with the school for about five weeks. When the accident

occurred, Mr. Haley was helping another student and Mrs. Beveridge was helping the girls. The

Court ruled that there was a failure to exercise proper supervision by the staff and awarded

Darlene Brahatcek $53,570 in damages. (2) The negligence of those who are in charge caused

the death of David Brahatcek, just like those who were responsible in making sure that Ray

Knight’s parents were appropriately notified could have possibly prevented him from being shot.

Now let’s take a look at two court cases where the school wasn’t held liable. Glaser v.

Emporia Unified School District is a court case pertaining to a 12-year-old boy who was struck

by a car on a public street adjacent to the school property. On the morning of December 22,

1993, Todd Glaser arrived at school early in the morning. Douglas Epp, a teacher for the school,

saw that Todd and another boy were running around the area but kept ignored them. Due to the

incident happening before school started and since he wasn’t at the school, the court ruled in

favor of the school district. (3) We can take a look at his case and see how it parallels with the

scenario in that the incident with Ray getting shot happened away from the school while he was

suspended.
Tort and Liability 4

The last case I want to present is Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District. Zachary

Thomason and several other students were involved in a car accident, striking Holly Scofield’s

car. Westview High School, where Zachary and the other students attended, had a closed-campus

policy where students could not leave campus without checking in and out. They also required a

“lunch pass” to be able to leave the school grounds. Thomason didn’t have a lunch pass, nor did

the other students. A security guard at the school questioned Thomason if he had a lunch pass,

which Thomason told him he was “going to get some books.” The guard told him multiple times

that he couldn’t leave, but Thomason insisted that he was. The guard then made no further effort

to stop Thomason. Thomason and the other students left in a hurry to return to school, only for

him to lose control of his car and hit Scofield’s car. When the school district was sued, the

Arizona court ruled in favor of the school district noting that was driving on a public street with a

valid driver’s license for a personal, not school related, purpose. “Once a student removes

himself from school grounds, with or without permission, his decision to drive is outside the

supervisory power of school officials.” (4) Ray Knight was fully capable of letting his parents

know of his suspension which could have kept him from much like Thomason knew he didn’t

have a lunch pass and should have stayed at school.

Before reviewing these cases, I had already made up my mind that the school district

would be a fault for not following policy when it comes to contacting parents. However, I’m

inclined to say that I believe we are dealing with a case of comparative negligence. There are

many factors that force me to think that this case scenario shows blame in both the school district

and with Ray Knight. If Knight’s parents were properly told about Ray’s suspension, would he

have been shot? If Ray had informed his parents, would he have been home, unable to visit his

friends house? I find the scenario to somewhat parallel that of the court case Mitchell v. Cedar
Tort and Liability 5

Rapids Community School District. I believe the court will rule in favor of Ray Knight due to the

school not following through on their policy; however, I also believe that whatever damages are

paid to Knight would be reduced because of the circumstances of his shooting occurring off

school property.
Tort and Liability 6

Reference Page

(1) Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (June 21, 2013)

(2) Brahatcek v. MILLARD SCH. DIST., SCH. DIST.# 17, 273 NW 2d 680 - Neb: Supreme

Court 1979

(3) Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, No. 253, 21 P.3d 573. (2001) April 20, 2001

(4) Collette v. Tolleson Unified Sch. Dist., No. 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 54 P.3d 828 (App. 2002)