Running head: ARTIFACT #5 TORT AND LIABILITY

Artifact #5 Tort and Liability

Sarmiento Daisy

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT #5 TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Abstract

Students of all ages get into trouble and often times face suspension. Ray Knight was shot

and killed while visiting a friend's house during the suspension. The big issue is that the parents

were not aware of the suspension and filed suit. To determine if the Knight family was in the

right for suing, this paper analyzes due process, tort liability, negligence, foreseeability, and

contributory negligence vs. comparative negligence. Also, four applicable court cases are gone

over to make the best possible decision. It can be concluded that the school district would not be

at fault for the damages since the incident happened off school grounds, and would have no

reason to foresee such a tragedy occurring.

ARTIFACT #5 TORT AND LIABILITY 3

While in middle school, students understandably exhibit unusual behavior. Their

hormones are all over the place, they try hard to fit in, and at the same time are still trying to

figure out who they are. Many adults forget that just like any other grown-up, students get busy,

have problems, and fall ill. Any of these factors can contribute to excessive absences in school.

The result is often suspension. A male middle school student named Ray Knight was suspended

three days for missing too many days of school. The administration did not send the parents a

telephone notification or any mail like they were supposed to. The only notification they sent

home was with Ray who threw it away. Maybe he discarded it out of fear or just carelessness.

Sadly, Ray was shot during his suspension when we went to visit a friend's home. The mother

and father of the student decided to pursue liability charges against the school.

To determine if Ray Knight's parents were in the right, it is important to discuss due

process, tort liability, negligence, foreseeability, and contributory negligence vs. comparative

negligence. Due process guarantees a fair and trial to those who feel they have been wronged. It

is a form of protection for the individual. According to the official LegalMatch website, "A tort

is a legal term describing a violation where one person causes damage, injury, or harm to another

person. The violation may result from intentional actions, a breach of duty as in negligence, or

due to a violation of statutes" (LegalMatch). A tort liability is when the tortfeasor must pay back

for the damages that he, she, or they placed on the victim. Negligence is when an individual's

careless behavior results in property damage, or another person getting hurt (FindLaw).

According to USLegal, foreseeability is when the "the resultant injury was reasonably

predictable by a person of ordinary intelligence and circumspection" (USLegal). One example is

if someone throws a heavy object at another individual. Comparative negligence is when both

the plaintiff and defendant are guilty, what the plaintiff should be awarded is reduced by the
ARTIFACT #5 TORT AND LIABILITY 4

percent in which they are at fault (Phillips Law Offices). Contributory negligence is when both

the plaintiff and defendant are guilty, but the plaintiff does not receive the damage award

(Phillips Law Offices).

The first case that would help support the Knight family is Goss v. Lopez. In 1974, nine

students from Columbus, Ohio received ten-day suspensions each. "The school principals did not

hold hearings for the affected students before ordering the suspensions"(Oyez). Although, the

school administrations in Ohio were not required to do so by law. After the case was taken to

federal court, it was determined that the nine students' rights had all in fact been violated. After

that, the case was taken to the Supreme Court and the same conclusion was reached. Majority

opinion won 5-4 in favor of the students. "The Court held that Ohio was constrained to recognize

students' entitlements to education as property interests protected by the Due Process Clause that

could not be taken away without minimum procedures required by the Clause"(Oyez). At the

very minimum, students that face the possibility of being suspended should be given a notice and

hearing.

Although this next case initially ruled in favor of the school district, the parents did not

walk away empty-handed. The second case to support the Knight family is Warrington v. Tempe

Elementary School District. In 1999, an elementary student was dropped off at a school bus stop

and saw a student who had previously threatened him headed his way. In fear of being hurt, the

student's reaction was to run away. Sadly, the student ran into the street and was hit by a car. The

boy suffered severe injuries to both the spine and brain. The Warrington family sued and argued

that the bus stop was not in a safe location. Thus, there was "a foreseeable risk of

harm"(Doherty). Since the students was dropped off safely, the state trial court decided that the

district should not be liable for the damages. The Arizona Court of Appeals decided to change
ARTIFACT #5 TORT AND LIABILITY 5

the ruling. They "determined that the district was 15 percent at fault and owed the parents

$900,000 in damages" (Doherty). The district still lost some money.

Pistolese v. William Floyd Union Free District is the first case that would help support

the school officials in the Knight case. A school boy named Anthony Pistoles decided to not take

the bus, and instead walked home with some friends. Anthony was then assaulted by another

group of youths. He was no longer considered to be on school grounds when the incident

occurred. The courts ruled in favor of the school district since "custodial duty ceases once the

student has passed out of its orbit of authority and the parent is perfectly free to reassume control

over the child's protection"(Leagle). If the incident would have been near school grounds, the

ruling could have been different.

The last court case to support the school officials and district where Knight attended is

Sanford v. Stiles. Sixteen-year-old Michael Sanford from Pennsylvania committed suicide in his

own home. The mother filed suit against the East Penn School District and Pamela Stiles, a

guidance counselor. The mother argued that they were "liable for her son's death under a state-

created danger theory" (Sanford v. Stiles). Stanford also accused Pamela Stiles of negligence and

should be liable for her lack of action. The courts would not side with the mother of Michael

since she "is unable to show that Stiles or the East Penn School District acted with the requisite

level of culpability" (Sanford v. Stiles).

After the analysis of the law terms and four court cases, one can conclude that the courts

should side with the school district and not Ray Knight. Just like in Pistolese v. William Floyd

Union Free District, Ray was no longer on school grounds when the incident occurred.

Therefore, the school should not be liable for the damages. Similar to Sanford v. Stiles, the

administration did not act with "the requisite level of culpability." Although knight should have
ARTIFACT #5 TORT AND LIABILITY 6

received a hearing like the nine students in Goss v. Lopez, he was given a note to take home but

decided to discard it. Finally, just like in Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District, Ray

Knight was no longer on school property when he was shot. If the courts did decide to rule in

favor of Knight, comparative negligence should be applied and a percentage of what the district

would owe should be deducted. This is since Knight was partly at fault for throwing away the

paper. Overall, no reasonable person would have never guessed that such a tragedy would

happen and therefore, the school should not be held accountable.

ARTIFACT #5 TORT AND LIABILITY 7

References

Doherty, O. (2003, December 10). Violence Outside School Walls Raises Concern - Education

Week. Retrieved from

https://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2003/12/10/15violence.h23.html

FindLaw. (n.d.). Negligence. Retrieved from https://injury.findlaw.com/accident-injury-

law/negligence.html

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

(2010) | 20100122425 |. Retrieved from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20100122425

LegalMatch. (n.d.). Tort Law Liability | Law Library. Retrieved from

https://www.legalmatch.com/law-library/article/tort-law-liability.html

Oyez. (n.d.). Goss v. Lopez. Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898

Phillips Law Offices. (n.d.). Comparative Negligence vs. Contributory Negligence -. Retrieved

from https://www.phillipslawoffices.com/firmnews/personal-injury/comparative-

negligence-vs-contributory-negligence/

SANFORD v. STILES | FindLaw. (2006, August 2). Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1380734.html

USLegal. (n.d.). Foreseeability Law and Legal Definition. Retrieved from

https://definitions.uslegal.com/f/foreseeability/