ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

Artifact #3

Tort and Liability

Kacie Gottenborg

College of Southern Nevada

October 27, 2017

1
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

A middle school student named Ray Knight was suspended from school for three days

due to his unexcused absences. School districts require a telephone notification and a written

notice by mail to parents when suspensions occur. The middle school did not comply with these

procedures and only sent a notice home with Ray. He threw the notice away and never informed

his parents of his suspension, leaving his parents completely unaware of the suspension

occurring. During his first day of suspension, Ray was accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s

house. The question in this case is whether or not Ray’s parents have defensible grounds to

pursue liability charges.

D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board (2001) is the first case I am presenting in favor of

Ray Knight’s parents to pursue liability charges against his school. Failure to follow the school

district’s required procedures to inform parents of the suspension is why the school should be

found negligent. In D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board (2001), a 12-year-old girl arrived at

school and was informed that the skirt she was wearing was too short and it violated the school

dress code. Without a family member at home who had proper transportation, she was told she

had to sign-out of school, walk home and change. As she walked towards her home that

morning, she encountered a man who sexually molested her. The court found the school liable

for what happened to her. The court concluded the school’s duty to supervise the young girl was

owed to her and the actions of the school board resulted in a breach of the duty of reasonable

supervision. The school’s policy requires the child to remain on campus until contact with the

child’s parent is made. This case sufficiently backs up a liability case for Ray Knight’s parents. It

can be assumed that Ray would not have gone to his friend’s house on the first day of his

suspension and accidentally been shot had the school followed procedures and called his parents

or sent the letter home in the mail.

2
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

The second case presented in Ray Knight’s parents’ favor to pursue liability charges

against the school board is Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (2013). In this

case, a 14-year-old, ninth grade, special education student who had an IQ of 67 and an

Individualized Special Education Program set up for her, was rarely, if ever without adult

supervision because of her diminished capacity. This girl’s special education teacher, Ms.

Biedenbach, witnessed her spending a lot of time with a 19-year-old senior boy who was also in

special education. This teacher even observed them engaging in physical contact including

kissing. Ms. Biedenbach testified that she had specific concerns that the two students were

sexually active, were likely to be together if absent from class at the same time, and might

engage in sex if left unsupervised. One day, the girl and a friend decided to leave school after

fifth period, despite not having permission to leave school early and left with the senior boy. The

school had a computerized system in place for tracking students' attendance and absences.

Typically, a teacher would document a student's absence on a computer in the classroom at the

beginning of each class. If a student left school during the school day, and a parent had not called

to authorize the early departure, the student's absence would be recorded as unexcused. In the

evening of the same day, an automated messenger system would place a phone call to the parents

of each student with an unexcused absence and reveal the periods missed by the student. As the

school relied on this automated system for recording and reporting absences, the school's policy

did not require teachers to place personal calls alerting parents of their children's absences. The

absences were recorded that afternoon, but record does not show if any other measure was taken

in response to her absence even though Ms. Biedenbach said she always took additional

measures to look for absent students. The young girl and the senior boy were in a friend’s garage

when the boy raped her, while the friend watched from a window shooting the girl with a BB

3
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

gun. The boy eventually pled guilty to sex abuse in the third degree for committing a “sex act”

when “the person is fourteen or fifteen and the other person is four or five years older”. The

girl’s mother (Mitchell), sued the school for negligence, alleging they had breached a duty of

reasonable care in one or more of the following ways: (1) failing to adequately supervise her

daughter, (2) failing to timely notify her of her daughter’s unauthorized absence from school, (3)

failing to adequately monitor her attendance at school, (4) failing to take appropriate and

immediate action upon the discovery of her absence from school, (5) failing to provide adequate

security to prevent special education students from leaving the school campus without

authorization, and (6) failing to maintain an adequate system of monitoring special education

students during the school day. The jury returned a verdict of comparative negligence in this

case. Seventy percent was at fault to the school and thirty percent to the girl. This could be the

exact example that Ray Knight’s parents need to feel they have defensible grounds to pursue

liability charges because the verdict in their case may come back the same as the one in Mitchell

v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (2013). Although the injuries sustained were not on

school property, the school still had a breach of duty by not properly supervising the child.

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District No. 253 (2001) will be the first case presented

in arguing that Ray Knight’s parents do not have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges

against the school. In this case, a 12-year-old seventh grade student, Todd Glaser, was chased off

of school property which had been unsupervised at the time and into the public street by another

student. He was injured in a collision with a car. The accident occurred prior to classes starting

and the street was adjacent to the school. It was undisputed that the school district “does not

exercise supervision before school until a student is inside the building.” Since Glaser was on

school grounds before school began and there is no policy for administrators to supervise

4
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

students until they are in the building when classes begin, there was no breach of duty.

Therefore, the court found in favor of the Emporia School District. Glaser v. Emporia Unified

School District No. 253 (2001) backs up the fact that Ray Knight’s parents have no grounds to

pursue liability charges. Although the school failed to give his parents proper notice of his

suspension, he was not injured on school property. He was accidentally shot at a friend’s house

on the day his suspension started and there is no way the school could have foreseen this injury

occurring. The school had no duty to supervise Ray Knight after he left school grounds, so

liability charges should not be filed in this case.

The case Munn v. Hotchkiss School (2015) will be the second case presented in the

argument against Ray Knight’s parents to pursue liability charges against the school. In this case,

a 15-year-old student Cara Munn, decided to participate in a summer program with her school to

a trip to China. Students would spend a month there immersing themselves in Chinese language

classes and getting to know the culture. Jean Yu, the school’s Chinese Language and Culture

Program Director was the trip leader. In preparation for the trip, she sent parents a packet

outlining activities and a set of legal forms for the participants and parents to waive legal claims

against the school. The packet mentioned a visit to Mount Panshan. The school also sent medical

advice for the trip, including a link to a Centers for Disease Control and Prevention webpage.

The packet had a packing list and it mentioned to bring bug spray, but did not include any

warnings about any insect-borne diseases. The students decided to go hiking one weekend and

ten days later Munn woke up feeling sick. Munn was diagnosed with tick‐borne encephalitis, a

viral infectious disease that affects the central nervous system. Because of her illness, Munn lost

her ability to speak. Munn and her family filed action against the school alleging negligent

planning and careless supervision is the cause of her illness. The jury found that Hotchkiss was

5
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

negligent, but upon appeal Hotchkiss questions foreseeability. They argue there was insufficient

evidence to support the jury verdict that it was foreseeable Munn would contract a serious

disease. Ray Knight’s school could not have foreseen him throwing the notice of suspension

away, going to a friend’s house, and accidentally being shot.

I think the court will rule in favor of Ray Knight’s parents that they do have grounds to

pursue liability charges. In the case of D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board (2001), a child

should not be allowed to leave school grounds without first contacting the child’s parents and in

the case of Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (2013), the supervising of

students on school grounds needs to be efficient. When students are absent in the middle of the

school day, parents need to be telephoned right away. Ray Knight’s middle school failed to

follow proper procedures in notifying his parents what was going on with his suspension

resulting in him getting injured.

6
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY

References

A School's Duty of Care to its Students: Munn v. Hotchkiss School — Goldberg & Zipursky.
(2015, August 31). Retrieved October 27, 2017
https://blogs.harvard.edu/nplblog/2015/08/26/a-schools-duty-of-care-to-its-students-munn-v-
hotchkiss-school-goldberg-zipursky/

Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. (n.d.). D.C. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH | 802 So.2d
19 (2001) | 2so2d191819. Retrieved October 27, 2017
https://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802so2d191819

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Iowa case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2017
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1635949.html

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Kansas case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 27, 2017
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1364854.html