Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 1

Artifact #3

Tort and Liability

Yailin Solis

College of Southern Nevada

September 21,2019
Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 2

Ray Knight who was a current middle school student, was suspended for three days due

to multiple unexcused absences. The school district's procedure for issues like these is a

telephone call, and written notice by mail to the student’s parents. In this case the school only

sent a notice to the parents via the student, however, Ray threw the notice away. Ray’s parents

were unaware of his suspension. Unfortunately, during the first day of Ray’s suspension, he was

shot while he visited a friend.

The case King v. Northeast Security Inc.(2003) will be the first case against Ray Knight's

parent's claims to pursue liability charges against the school. In the case, King v. Northeast

Security Inc.(2003) Assistant Superintendent of the Metropolitan School District of Washington

hired Northeast Security Inc. to work for North Central High school. The security team’s main

duties were to ensure the safety of students and personnel and to keep an eye on any criminal

activity in the parking lots and exterior of the building. On April 18th King stood outside of the

parking lot with another student waiting for his ride home when a large crowd approached them.

King and the large crowd exchanged some words, and King was struck by a student in the

crowd. After someone yelled that the police were on their way the crowd fled the scene. As a

result of this King suffered multiple injuries to his jaw, head, and body. The verdict of this case

was that the Security at Northeast was not responsible for protecting king from third-party

criminal acts, however, the School District may be liable for its duty to supervise the safety of its

students. Ray Knight's parents have no grounds to pursue liability charges because it was not the

school’s responsibility to keep Ray safe while he was suspended since he is not on school

grounds. The school cannot be held responsible for third party criminal activity that occurs

around Ray’s friend’s house.

Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 3

The second case against Ray Knight’s parent's claims to pursue liability charges is

Bonamico v. City of Middletown (1998). In the case of Bonamico v. City of Middletown (1998)

Rosamaria Bonamico a student at Woodrow Wilson Middle school one day walked down a

corridor as she was struck in the eye with a pellet that Black another student threw at her. Black

had just come home from an economics session where he learned to make bean bags. Also,

Black did not return some of the beans they used to make the bean bags. The schools' policy

required all teachers to supervise the students when they switched classrooms, however, Black’s

economics teacher failed to follow this policy, and as a result, Bonamico suffered an eye injury.

The jury ruled that it can not be proven that the school would have known that Bonamico was

going to get injured by simply walking down the hall. Just like Ray, his middle school did not

know that Ray would get shot while his suspension occurred. Ray’s parents have no grounds to

pursue liability charges because the school had no idea Ray was going to suffer a gunshot

wound.

D.C. V. ST. Landry Parish School Board (2001) will be the first case in favor of Ray

Knight’s parent's decision to pursue liability charges. In the case D.C. V. ST. Landry Parish

School Board (2001) K.C. who was currently in seventh grade arrived at school and was told by

Mr. Hooks that her skirt was too short. Mr. Hooks sent K.C. to the office to call her parents,

however, K.C. called home but spoke to her eighteen-year-old brother. Her brother had no

transportation to take her different clothing. K.C. told Ms. Guilbeau that for her to have that

proper clothing for school she needed to go home and change. Ms. Guilbeau allowed K.C. to

check herself out of school. While K.C. was walking home eight blocks from the school she was

molested by Neil Mark Lewis. The court ruled in favor of K.C. and awarded her money for her

medical, and general damages. Ray’s parents have grounds to pursue liability charges because
Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 4

the school did not follow a proper procedure by directly notifying his parents. Both incidents

could have been prevented if the school would have not violated school policies.” The duty was

breached by the failure to exercise an appropriate standard of care” (2006). Causation also

played a role in both cases because both student's parents were not aware that the students

weren’t at school so them being outside of school was an incident waiting to occur.

The last case presented in favor of Ray Knight’s parents is Goss v. Lopez (1975) and in

this case, nine students attending an Ohio school were suspended for 10 days without a hearing

regarding their suspension. Ohio is not required to hold a hearing for students dealing with a

suspension however a federal court found that the students' rights had been violated. The court

verdict was that since Ohio participates in an extension to the right of education to its citizens.

The court found that any student facing a suspension should at least be given a notice and some

kind of hearing. Just as presented in the case Goss v. Lopez (1975) Ray was entitled to a possible

hearing before he got suspended. If that hearing would have occurred, he would have never gone

to his friend’s house because his parents would have found out about his suspension. Therefore,

his parents have grounds to pursue liability charges towards the school district. Lastly, the school

also failed to notify Ray’s parents about his suspension and instead just notified Ray.

In conclusion, I have to side with Ray’s parents because the school district failed to

follow the protocol of notifying Ray’s parents. The case D.C. V. ST. Landry Parish School Board

(2001) is an example of how causation played a role in both cases because both student's parents

were not aware that the students weren’t at school so they being outside of school was an

incident waiting to occur. Ray getting shot was an incident that could have been prevented if the

school followed protocol. Lastly, Ray was entitled to a hearing before his suspension occurred.
Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 5

The school also failed to provide him with that hearing just like the nine students in the case

Goss v. Lopez (1975).

Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 6

References

BONAMICO v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN(1998).(n.d.). Retrieved September 20,2019

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-court-of-appeals/1193243.html

D.C. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BD., 802 So.2d 19 (2001). (n.d.). Retrieved

September 20,2019

.http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819.xml/D.C.%20v.%20ST.%20

LANDRY%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.

GOSS V. LOPEZ. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2019

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898

KING v. NORTHEAST SECURITY INC (2003). (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2019

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-supreme-court/1053248.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle

River: Pearson Education.