Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 1

Artifact #3

Tort and Liability

Callie L. McLean

College of Southern Nevada

September 23rd, 2017

Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 2

Due to numerous unexcused absences, middle school student, Ray Knight was suspended

for three days and given a notice of suspension to bring home to his parents. However, school

district procedures normally require notification over the phone and a written notice of the

suspension sent through the mail. Because Ray Knight had the only notice of his own suspension

he had thrown it away, leaving his parents to be unaware of his suspension. On his first day of

suspension, Ray was over at a friends house where he was accidentally shot.

In the case of Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District (2002) a high school student,

Zachary Thomason, was driving himself and four other students during the school’s lunch hour.

While the school allows for off campus lunch breaks, Thomason did not have a lunch pass

needed in order to be allowed off school property. Appellants Barbara Collette and Scott

MacFarland, wife and husband, and Holly L. Scofield were injured in a car crash when

Thomason struck his car, which was going approximately 72 mph, into Scofield’s as Thomas and

his friends were returning to the school. Appellants filed suit against the school board claiming

their injuries were due to the school’s negligence and that the district due to “its modified closed-

campus policy, had a duty to protect the general public from the negligent driving of students

who left campus” Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District (2002). However, the District

claimed they “had no duty to protect against injuries occurring in off campus lunchtime

accidents” Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District (2002). Seeing that the incident occurred

off campus and was the fault of Thomason, the school by no means had control over Thomason

operating the vehicle and therefore cannot be held responsible for damages occurring off

property that affects a third party. The courts ruled in favor of Tolleson School District providing

that it is not the District or School’s responsibility for off campus damages to which they have no

affiliation or causation. This case is a prime example in the incident leading to Ray Knight’s
Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 3

death. Seeing that Knight was off of school campus and involved in a third party situation that

lead to his shooting, the school shouldn’t be held accountable for his death.

In the case of Honeycutt v. City of Wichita (1990) Jeremy Honeycutt a 6 year old boy was

walking home from school when in a freak accident got his legs severed by an oncoming train.

On normal circumstances Jeremy was usually accompanied by his grandfather or mother who

would either walk along with him or drive home to and from the school. However on March 5th,

1987 Jeremy and another student were walking along the railroad unaccompanied by any adult.

During this time Jeremy had gotten too close to the train and had his legs severed off. Seeing

that Jeremy had been reminded by his mother, his teachers, and railroad personnel to stay away

from the trains, the question of negligence must be acknowledged. In regards to contributory

negligence being that “the injured party caused part of his or her own injuries through

negligence, the defendant’s liability is reduced and the court should not grant the injured party

full monetary recovery” (Underwood & Webb, 2006). However the court stated that “a child

under seven is not capable of negligence as a matter of law” (Honeycutt v. Wichita, 1990). This

case can be used in understanding the role of negligence in Ray Knight’s death. Seeing that

Knight was 14 years of age he could be seen as negligent to his own safety. The fact that Knight

threw away his notice of suspension and then went to a friends house the following day against

his parents knowledge is an example of his own contributory negligence. Therefor the school

shouldn’t be held liable for the incidences that lead to Knight’s death.

In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991) a thirteen year

old student, Nicole Eisel, arranged with another girl her age what appeared to be a murder-

suicide pact on November 8th, 1988. A week prior to the suicide Nicole had told numerous of

her friends and fellow students her plans with a girl from another school to commit suicide
Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 4

together. Friends belonging to a different school notified their counselor Deidre Morgan of

Nicole’s intentions. Morgan then notified Nicole’s school’s counselor Dorothy Jones, and the

two questioned Nicole about her statements and her intentions, but Nicole had denied them.

After they spoke neither Morgan or Jones made an attempt to contact Nicole’s family or their

administration. After her death her father, Stephen Eisel, immediately filed suit against the Board

of Education of the account of negligence of the two counselors. Eisel argued that “by the School

Board's own policy, counselors were required to contact the parents of any child who had

expressed suicidal thoughts” Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991). A

higher court ruled in favor of Eisel seeing that the counselor had foreseeable knowledge of

Nicole’s intentions and had the possibility to intervene but didn’t. This case is an example of tort

law in which a wrong act lead to the death of Nicole Eisel. When looking at the incident of Ray

Knight one could find the school, having known Knight’s history of absences and

insubordination should have taken the proper procedures in notifying Knight’s parents of his

suspension. In failure to send additional notice, whether by phone call or mail, the school should

be held accountable due to their own negligence.

In the case of DC v. Landry Parish School Board (2001) seventh grader K.C. was told the

skirt she was wearing was too short and violated her school’s dress code. After being sent to the

office K.C called home in an attempt to have her brother bring her a skirt that was deemed

appropriate for the school. Her brother not having access to a car was unable to provide for her,

this lead the secretary to have K.C. sign herself out of school and walk home to change her attire.

As she was walking home a man by the name of Neil Mark Lewis sexually assaulted her nearly

eight blocks from the school. This lead K.C.’s father, D.C., to file a suit against Landry Parish

School Board on account of their negligence and failure to preserve the student’s safety. The
Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 5

courts ruled in favor of D.C., showing that letting a seventh grader out of the school’s care

without notifying her parents or showing any attempt to provide for her safety was a breach of

duty. For even the principle Mr. Morrison stated that, “at the least, school policy required that

some contact be made by school personnel with a child's parent before the child could leave

campus” DC v. Landry Parish School Board (2001). This case provides a prime example of how

a school’s negligence and failure to follow procedure can cause indirect harm to the very student

that they are to protect. When looking at the fatality of Ray Knight there were numerous of steps

the school should have taken to inform his parents of his suspension. Had Knight’s parents been

properly informed their son’s death could have been avoided.

In view of the scenario of Ray Knight’s death, I lean in favor of the parents. When

analyzing the numerous cases that coincide with the rights of both the school and the parents I

feel the case D.C. v. Landry Parish School Board (2001) best describes the situation. For one

must consider a balance of the school’s duty to protect its students and the protocols enforced to

ensure that safety. Because the school failed to follow proper procedure and protocol, much

similar in the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991), they did not

uphold their duty of standard of care, incidentally leading to Knight’s death. Therefor Knight’s

parents should pursue liability charges and the school should be held accountable.
Running head: Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 6

Reference

D.C. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BD., 802 So.2d 19 (2001). (n.d.). Retrieved
September 20, 2017.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819.xml/D.C.%20v.%20ST.%20LANDR
Y%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.

EISEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY Case Brief. (n.d.).

Retrieved September 20, 2017.

http://www.4lawschool.com/torts/eisel.shtml

FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2017.

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1291266.html

HONEYCUTT v. CITY OF WICHITA. (n.d.). Retrieved September 20, 2017.

http://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1992/66-595-3.html

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

River: Pearson Education.