Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY 1

Artifact #5: Tort and Liability

Cecilia Andrade-Salcedo

College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Abstract

This artifact will be about Ray Knight, a middle school student who was suspended for

three days because of his excessive unexcused absences. The school district required the school

to notify the parents though a phone call and by a letter mailed home. However, in Mr. Knight’s

situation, the school ended up just sending a letter home with Ray- who later on threw it away

instead of giving it to his parents. During the first day of the suspension, Ray was on his way to a

friend’s house and was accidently shot. These are the following possible outcomes when looking

at landmark court cases, torts and liability that apply to Ray Knight’s situation.
TORT AND LIABILITY 3

Artifact #5: Tort and Liability

There is no such thing as “perfect” and accidents happen every day. Accidents happen

everywhere on a daily basis, sadly, some more tragically than other. Whether an accident

happens for natural causes, or by the negligent acts of others, an accident is an accident. With

that said, Ray Knight, a young school boy, was suspended for unexcused absences. Ray was

handed a note to take home in which the school explained Ray’s suspension. However, Ray

never gave his parents the note. On Ray’s first day of suspension, he was shot while visiting a

friend’s house. His parents filed a lawsuit blaming the school for negligence and not properly

informing them of their child’s suspension. In Ray’s case, there can be many different rulings

based on landmark cases, policies and laws.

In the case of Anthony Pistolese v. William Floyd Union Free District, Anthony, a young

boy, attended school. On the last day of school, Anthony decided to walk home with some

friends rather than taking the school bus home. On his way home from school, Anthony was

assaulted by other boys. The incident happened near Montauk Highway, 30 minutes after

Anthony left the school grounds. Anthony and his parents sued the school district arguing that

Anthony’s safety was the school’s responsibility. In this case, the incident happened when

Anthony was outside of the orbit of the school’s authority therefore, the court ruled that the

school was not responsible for the safety of Anthony (Pistolese v William Floyd Union Free

District). Comparing Anthony’s case to Ray Knight’s case, Ray was suspended from school due

to unexcused absences and on his first day of suspension, he was accidentally shot while visiting

a friend’s house. Since Ray was suspended from school and Ray was outside of the orbit of the

school’s authority, Ray’s safety was not the school’s responsibility.

TORT AND LIABILITY 4

Furthermore, in the case of Goss v. Lopez, Dwight Lopez and eight other students from

different schools in Ohio were suspended for misconduct. In their case, they were not given a

hearing and they filed a suit. In their suit, the students claimed violation of their Fourteenth

Amendment rights to due process. A federal court ruled in favor of the students saying that

suspending students for more than 10 days or expelling students without a hearing first, is

unconstitutional. This case was later heard by the Supreme Court, who also ruled for the students

and added that school are not take disciplinary action s without fair procedures. Explained by the

Schimmel on Britannica.com, student has the right to property and liberty rights that are

protected by due process. The court then further added that any student being suspended should

be given an “oral or written notice of the charges against him, and, if he denies them, an

explanation of the evidence the authorities have and an opportunity to present his side of the

story (Schimmel, 2014).” In comparison to Ray Knight’s situation, Ray’s parents have the right

to sue the school for not giving Ray a hearing. In addition to a hearing, the school failed to

properly inform the parents of their child’s situation. The school’s actions and failed procedures

further proves the negligence of the school and their violation of due process.

Contributory Negligence is recognized in some states as a defense. The reason why some

states use contributory negligence as a defense is to deny recovery for plaintiffs when their

actions were responsible for the injury. Under contributory negligence, it does not make a

difference if the defendant was negligent or slightly at fault. According to the book Legal Rights

of Teacher and Students, in most jurisdiction today, a slight degree of fault will not prevent a

plaintiff from prevailing; in most cases, the contributory negligence must be significant, although

it does not need to be dominant (Cambron-McCabe, 2014). In the case of Ray Knight,

contributory negligence is something that should be considered. Ray made the choice of walking
TORT AND LIABILITY 5

home with his friends instead of taking the bus. It was Ray’s choice, therefore the school is not at

fault for Ray being assaulted. In addition, the assault happened outside the supervised orbit of the

school. In other words, Ray’s decision and his parents failure to pick him up is out of the school’s

hands.

Comparative Negligence is has been adopted by most states now and it is a way to deal

with contributory negligence where the plaintiff’s and defendant's negligence for an injury is

weighed when determining damages (Contributory and Comparative Negligence). Usually the

courts will look at the negligence of both parties and total the recovery for any damages. When a

person is has contributed to their damages, that is all taken under account and based on how

much negligence they are at fault for, it what the court will decide on. If a plaintiff has damages

totaling $10,000 and they are responsible for 25% of their own damage, the defendant is only

responsible for $7,500 (Contributory and Comparative Negligence). This was established and

adopted to reduce harsh and unfair case outcomes. In the case of Ray Knight, the school should

be responsible for 75% of the negligence since they failed to properly inform the parents over the

phone and mail. The reason why the defendant is only responsible for 75% of negligence is

because Ray is also responsible since he did not deliver the school letter to his parents.

Therefore, damages should be distributed fairly and accordingly to their level of negligence.

In the case of Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District, Andrew Warrington, a

seven year-old boy, was hit by a car and was seriously injured when he ran on to the street after

being dropped off at his bus stop. Andrew’s bus stop is located on a busy street, which speed

limit exceeds forty-five miles per hour (Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School Dist., 1996).

Andrew and his parents sued the school district claiming that the placement of a bus stop on a

busy street was an act of negligence by the school district. It is unsafe for young kids to be
TORT AND LIABILITY 6

dropped off on busy streets with high speeding limit exceeding forty-miles per hour (Warrington

v. Tempe Elementary School Dist., 1996). After Andrew’s case was heard, the court ruled in

favor of Andrew and his parents as it was the school’s district responsibility to ensure bus stops

are safe for the students. The court ruled that the school district was liable for negligence when it

fails to exercise ordinary care under the circumstances. In comparison to Ray’s case, the school

is not negligent because Ray was out of the orbit of school supervision in addition, Ray made the

decision to walk home instead of taking his normal, and safe transportation home.

In conclusion, the school is not liable for the accident that happened to Ray Knight.

Although the school failed to properly inform the parents, the school is not liable for absent

students. The school is only responsible of students when they are on property and during the

school day. In Ray’s situation, the school attempted to inform the parents however, Ray took that

away from them. It was his choices and his actions that are liable for his accident and not the

school district.
TORT AND LIABILITY 7

References

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and

students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Contributory and Comparative Negligence. (n.d.). Retrieved April 25, 2017, from

http://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-law/contributory-and-comparative-

negligence.html

PISTOLESE v. WILLIAM FLOYD UNION FREE DISTRICT | 69 A.D.3d 825 (2010). (n.d.).

Retrieved April 24, 2017, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NYCO%2020100122425/PISTOLESE%20v.%20

WILLIAM%20FLOYD%20UNION%20FREE%20DISTRICT#

Schimmel, D. (2014, September 23). Goss v. Lopez. Retrieved April 24, 2017, from

https://www.britannica.com/topic/Goss-v-Lopez

WARRINGTON v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL DIST. NO. 3 | 187 Ariz. 249 (1996).

(n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2017, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1996436187Ariz249_1402/WARRINGTON%20v.%20T

EMPE%20ELEMENTARY%20SCHOOL%20DIST.%20NO.%203