Portfolio Artifact #3, Tort and Liability

Portfolio Artifact #3: Tort and Liability

Michael L Lepera
College of Southern Nevada
April 22, 2017
Celia Isbell
Portfolio Artifact #3, Tort and Liability

Middle school student Ray Knight was suspended for three days due to unexcused absences.

The the school district Knight belonged to has policies requiring that, in the case of suspension, the

student's parents be notified via telephone and written letter mailed to parent or guardian. However, the

school instead gave a written notification of suspension directly to Ray Knight, who disposed of it

immediately. Ray's parents were then unaware of their child's suspension. On the first day of Ray's

suspension, Ray was accidentally shot while visiting a friend's house. The question here is if Ray's

parents have grounds to pursue liability charges against the school officials.

The first case in favor of the Knight family will be Norman v Ogallala Pub. Sch. Dist. (2000).

In Norman v Ogallala Pub. Sch. Dist. (2000), a 15-year old Christopher Norman enrolled in a welding

class at Ogallala High School taught by Willis Hastings. Before welding instruction, Hastings handed

out informational papers to the students on proper safety attire required for safe welding. Though, when

verbally elaborating to his students, simply said “Bring an old shirt.” Christopher Norman's 'old shirt'

was a cotton-flannel button-up. The flannel, when exposed to the welding, ignited; causing severe

burning to ten percent of Christopher's body, requiring extensive and painful therapy and recovery

operations to repair the burnt left half of his body. An expert witness, James Rhone, who is a safety

director for the University of Nebraska-Lincoln testified that handing out 'informational papers' on

safety does not provide adequate supervision in regards to minors. To say nothing about allowing

Christopher to choose his own 'safety equipment', or not bothering to check what clothing the students

did bring before beginning welding. Norman v Ogallala Pub. Sch. Dist. (2000) applies to Ray Knight's

case by way of negligence and a failure to follow proper and reasonable procedure to ensure the safety

of students. By simply handing the notification of suspension to Ray Knight, and not contacting

Knight's parents about the impending lack of supervision by way of suspension; a parallel can be drawn

to Hastings' handing over an informational safety packet and expecting the students to fully verse
Portfolio Artifact #3, Tort and Liability

themselves on its contents. By not informing Ray's parents, they parallel Hastings' not checking the

student's clothing for proper welding safety. In both cases, the school district failed to follow

reasonable safety procedures leading to the injury of a student.

The second case in favor of Ray Knight will be Johnson v Ken-Ton Union Free Sch. Dist (2008)

on the grounds once again of negligence. In Johnson v Ken-Ton Union Free Sch. Dist (2008) four

special education students were allowed, despite a history of rough-housing in the restroom, to go to

the restroom together unsupervised. After about four minutes of loud noises of rough-housing one of

the children were wounded when they were lifted from the ground and dropped on the floor. The school

district in Johnson v Ken-Ton Union Free Sch. Dist (2008) was found liable on the grounds that with

increased supervision the injury would not have taken place. Furthermore, the school was aware of the

problematic history of the four children; allowing them to visit the restroom unsupervised regardless.

Ray Knight, with his history of unexcused absences, should not have been entrusted to deliver notice of

his own suspension to his parents; much like those four special education children should not have been

entrusted to visit the restroom without incident. In both cases, the school is liable for negligent

supervision about a known risk.

As for the defendant, the school district's first favorable case is Maldonado v. Tuckahoe (2006)

on the grounds that a school is not expected to protect truant or non-attending students. In Maldonado

v. Tuckahoe (2006) a young student named Brian Morris was suspended after making death threats to

the plaintiff Bridgette Maldonado. During Brian's suspension and well after school hours at 8:30 P.M.

Morris attacked Maldonado in her home. The school district, who has disciplined Morris according to

their policies, informed all involved parties and parents of Morris' threats, and issued a suspension were

found not liable for the attack made against Maldonado in her home. Like in Maldonado v. Tuckahoe

(2006), Ray Knight's actions during his official suspension in the home of one of his friends is not the

responsibility of the school to supervise or protect against. Knight's or his friend's actions led to the
Portfolio Artifact #3, Tort and Liability

injury, outside of school grounds and during a suspension wherein the district is not considered

responsible for Ray's safety.

The second case in favor of the defendant is Dalton v Memminger (2009). In Dalton v

Memminger (2009), a relatively simple case, a student named Jacqueline A. Dalton was struck by a

vehicle after crossing a state highway on foot. The school district and State had provided all the

necessary safety precautions by way of crossing guards, street lights and crosswalks that Jacqueline

decided to ignore. Relating this to Ray Knight; Knight was provided with a notice of suspension he

made the decision to dispose of. Denying himself the benefit of his parent's own knowledge of his

removal from the school's umbrella of protection. Then, while his parents were unaware of his not

being at school and by his own design, Ray was shot in his friend's home. Ray is responsible for both

disposing of the provided notification, thus leaving his parents in the dark, and then the eventual injury

sustained at his friend's home when he should have been under the supervision of his parents.

Ray Knight's injury, ultimately, was his own creation. Even arguing that the school's own self-

imposed policies were breached and this would be seen as negligence like according to Johnson v Ken-

Ton Union Free Sch. Dist (2008) and Norman v Ogallala Pub. Sch. Dist. (2000) does not change the

fact that we are forced to make the assumption that Knight would not have been injured even if his

parents had been informed by Knight himself, or the school directly. The fact is, Knight was injured

during a suspension at a friend's home. He was off school property, and not a ward of the district

according to his suspension that his opted to dispose of. Like in Maldonado v. Tuckahoe (2006) where

despite the parents being informed, the injury still occurred, or with Dalton v Memminger (2009) where

the student opted to ignore the provided safe alternatives to crossing the street; Ray Knight's injury may

have occurred despite proper notification to the parents, and it still occurred well outside the school's

realm of realistic supervision. The defendant, the school district, is not liable for Knight's injury.
Portfolio Artifact #3, Tort and Liability

References

Dalton v Memminger, 899 N.Y.S.2d 785 (App. Div. 2009)

Johnson v Ken-Ton Union Free Sch. Dist. Dist. 850 N.Y.S.2d 813. (App. Div. 2008).

Maldonado v. Tuckahoe 817 N.Y.S.2d 376 (App. Div. 2006.)

Norman v Ogallala Pub. Sch. Dist., 609 N.W.2d 338 (Neb. 2000)

Cambron-McCabe, N. McCarthy, M. Eckes, S. (2014). Legal Rights Of Teachers And Students, 3rd
Edition. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson.