Portfolio#3 Tort and Liability

Josebe Dominguez

Nevada School Law/Fall

Portfolio#3 Tort and Liability

College of Southern Nevada

2 PORTFOLIO#3 TORT AND LIABILITY

Portfolio# 3 Tort and Liability

The school district procedure for suspension requires telephone notification and a

prompt written notification by email to the parents. Ray Knight is a middle school student

who was suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. The school only sent a

notice by the student, and he threw it away. In other words, the school didnt follow the

procedure, and the parents were unaware of his suspension. One day during his suspension,

he was shot while visiting a friends house. Rays parents are thinking about to pursue

liability charges against the school officials.

One court case that supports the side of the parents is Day v. Ouachita Parish

School Board et al. (2012). As in the case presented before the procedures were not

fallowed. In this case Morgan Day was required to participate in a weight training class

held during school hours. During one of the classes, Morgan injured his back while lifting

weights. After and examination the orthopedic provided Morgan with a written medical

excuse that said (1)No football for 1 week (2) No weightlifting, squats, or power cleans.

One day after the medical excuse was posted, Morgan was observing the class when the

assistant coach instructed him to lift. He reminded the coach the he was medically excused,

but the coach insisted. After that Morgan saw the doctor again complaining of back pain.

The doctor wrote another medical excuse that prohibited Morgan from all weightlifting and

football activities until further notice. After the disc injury, Morgan lost interest in school

and failed his classes because of excessive absences. Morgans mother sued the school

board and the coach who instructed Morgan to perform lift after the medical excuse had

been delivered. The trial court found the defendants liable for Morgans back injury.
Portfolio#3 Tort and Liability

Another case that supports the side of Rays parents is Wagenblast v. Odessa SD,

Supreme Court of Washington. Releases required to be signed by parents as a condition of

engaging in school activities, which hold school districts blameless from liability for

negligence, are commonly ruled to be invalid. Although no decisions have been rendered

with jurisdiction over Nevada, the Wagenblast case represents typical court rationale. First

parents cannot waive the rights of the student to reasonable care. Second, school districts

enjoy an unfair bargaining position. Third, waivers are not viable as a proof of assumption

of risk unless all conceivable potential injuries are listed. They hold the exculpatory

releases from any future school district negligence are invalid because they violate public

policy.

One court case that supports the side of the school is Peter W.: Educational

Malpractice. The student Peter W. has recently graduated from Galileo High School in San

Francisco with a C average. Following graduation he was employed in a shoe store but was

fired because he couldnt perform the simple arithmetic tasks of adding tax to the price of

shoes. Peters lawyer maintained that educators failed to act responsibly in administering to

his educational needs. The court denied Peters claim for three reasons: the absence of a

workable rule of case against which the conduct of school officials and teachers may be

measured; the inherent uncertainty in determining the cause and nature of any damages; the

extreme burden which would be imposed on the already strained resources of the public

school system. The court further explained:

The injury claimed here is the plaintiffs inability to read and write. Substantial

professional authority attests that the achievement of literacy in the schools, or its failure, is

influenced by a host of factors which affect the pupil subjectively, from outside the formal

teaching process, and beyond the control of its ministers. They may be physical,
4 PORTFOLIO#3 TORT AND LIABILITY

neurological, emotional, cultural, environmental; they may be presented but no perceived,

recognized but no identified.

Another case that supports the side of the school district is Golden v/ Milford

Exempted Village School District. This case involved an attack on a member of the

freshman basketball team by several fellow team members, but particularly one student

who had engaged in aggressive sexual behavior toward other team members throughout the

season. The student-aggressor targeted the freshman while other members of the team held

the student down while waiting to board a bus to travel to basketball practice. No adults

were supervising the students as they waited for the bus. When the word of the attack got

out, the school district conducted an investigation. The student-victim and his parents filed

suit against the student-aggressor and the school district and basketball coach. Claims

against the school district and coach included civil hazing and negligent supervision. The

court determined that the acts that occurred were not acts of "civil hazing" and could rather

be considered "bullying". Accordingly, the school district was not held liable under the civil

hazing statutes of the state. With regard to the claim of negligent supervision, the Court

found that while it was the basketball coach's duty to supervise the team, there was no

evidence that the coach acted in a manner that would be considered reckless, or willful and

wanton that would lead to liability and overcome the qualified immunity provided to

governmental employees. This case supports the side of the school because the acts occured

outside the classroom. The same happend in Rays case. Ray was in a friends house, not in

the school. In Rays case the school didnt follow the suspension prucedure, but in this case,

the professor who was supposed to to supervise the students was not there.

In the case presented in the first paragraph, the responsibility will probably be that

of the school district because the policy for suspension was not followed. I believe that
Portfolio#3 Tort and Liability

Rays parents do have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against the school

because the school district did not follow the policy and should be held responsible for the

safety of the student. As long as the parents can prove the negligence of the school, they

will probably win the case. The court will rule in favor of the parents. Policies are written

to protect everyone involved. If someone does not fallow the policy, then they need to

accept the consequence. Unfortunately in this case, maybe if the school would fallow the

policy, Ray would have been at home or under the care of someone and would not have

been shot.
6 PORTFOLIO#3 TORT AND LIABILITY

References

Exculpatory releases required as a condition for participating in interscholastic athletics

are void as against public policy. (2012). Clearinghouse of North Carolina School Law.
Retrieved from: http://csl.sog.unc.edu/node/1106

Law of Tort And Sport Litigation ( 2012). Tort and Liability. Rretieved from:
http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/law-of-tort-and-sports-litigation-746-
1.html

Is it Law of Tort of Law of Torts? (2012). The controversies and Theories.

Retrieved from: http://www.legalservicesindia.com/article/article/is-it-law-
of-tort-or-law-of-torts-1260-1.html