Running Header: Tort & Liability 1

Tort & Liability

Briana Torres-Chavez

College of Southern Nevada

Tort & Liability 2

How would you feel if your child was suspended from school and no notice was given to

you as the parent? Not only that, but what if your child was shot the first day he/she was

suspended? Ray Knight is the middle schooler who was suspended for 3 days due to unexcused

absences. Without giving a notice to their parents, the school sent out a notice to Ray, not

knowing he would get rid of it before showing it to his parents. Unfortunately, while Ray was

visiting his friend, the first day of his unknown suspension, he was shot. His parents weren’t

aware he wasn’t at school. ​Under ethical and moral values who do you believe is right? Should

Ray’s parents be able to pursue liability charges and have defensible grounds or should the

parents be liable for this tragic event?

One court case that defends ​Ray Knight and his parents would be Eisel v. Board of

Education of Montgomery County (1991). This court case found two school counselors

neglectful in failing to communicate with the parents issues concerning their child. The student

had suicidal statements made to the counselor and other students and even then the counselor’s

never spoke out of it to the parents. After the student denying those statements the counselors

thought it was unimportant to bring it out to the light. Such as, in this scenario the school never

thought of letting Ray’s parents know he was suspended for having unexcused absences. Instead,

they thought it was unimportant and relied on the student to let his parents know. If the school
Tort & Liability 3

had taken action and communicated with Ray’s parents, Ray would have stayed at home and not

been shot.

Another court case that ​defends ​Ray Knight and his parents would be Sain II v. Cedar

Rapids Community School District (2001). This court case describes how Bruce Sains, a

students in Jefferson High School was a basketball player and obtained aspirations in receiving a

scholarship that would fund his college for playing basketball. Larry Bowen, who was his

guidance counselor, was well informed with course requirements inflicted by the NCCA for

incoming student athletes. Unfortunately, due to the miscommunication of the counselor, Bruce

wasn’t aloud to get the scholarship because he was missing one of his english credits. Just like

that, Ray’s parents weren’t able to prevent the incident occurred because the school didn’t

communicate with them.

One court case that defends the school would be Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin

Independent School District (2004). This court case describes how Trevor Anderson, a high

schooler, was injured during his Wood II class. The case describes how his teacher, Peterson,

observed Trevor cut up to five pieces of wood, and after that left to another part of the classroom.

At the end of one piece of wood he was cutting there was a “waste” piece of wood. Trevor

moved his hand over the blade to get the piece of waste and hit the blade with his index finger.

Unfortunately, he cut his index finger and charges were pressed against his teacher, Peterson.

The court ruled that Peterson wasn’t at fault for this accident because the accident was caused

due to Trevors actions. Just like this, Ray Knights made his own decision of not telling his

parents about his suspension and decided to go over to a friends house instead of staying home.
Tort & Liability 4

Another court case that defends the school would be Collette v. Tolleson Unified School

District NO 214 (2002). This court case is about a student, Zachary Thomason, that cause a

multiple car accident when driving back to campus after going leaving school grounds for lunch.

The school has strict rules that indicate students can leave campus unless they are signed out by a

parent/guardian. By leaving campus, Zachary violated the school rules and was in charge of his

own actions. Such as, when Ray decided not to show his parents the suspension letter that was

given to him, he’s at fault for his own actions. The school isn’t liable for Ray getting shot

because they trusted Ray to show his parents the letter, letting them know he was suspended

from school. Therefore, Ray is the only one who should be liable, every action has

consequences.

The scenario was very intense and I honestly wasn’t sure who to side with. I understand

why the parents would be upset and want to sue the school. I get that some things you have to

discuss with parents, you can’t just send a letter home with the student. On the other hand, I

understand why it’s not the schools fault that Ray was shot. They did send home a letter and if it

wasn’t given to them was because of Ray. He was also the one who decided to make it seem like

he went to school but instead visited a friend and as a result got shot. After analyzing the court

cases, my belief is backed up by Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991).

There has to always be communication between parents and teachers no matter what. Even if you

think you are wrong, you have to disregard that and still communicate everything with parents so

they can be on the alert. That way more attention will be given to the child.
Tort & Liability 5

References

Anderson v. Anoka Hennepin Indep​ 678 N.W.2d 651 (Minn. 2004

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District ​54 P.3d 828 (Arizona 2002)

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County​ 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991)

Stain v. Cedar Rapids Comm. School Dist.,​ 626 N.W.2d 115,119 (Lowa 2001)