Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY CASE SCENARIO 1

Tort and Liability Case Scenario

D’Ahna Mitchell

College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABILITY CASE SCENARIO
2
What’s worse? The school district not doing their duty for your child(ren) or you as a

parent not doing yours? That’s what Ray Knight and his parents are facing in this court case

scenario against their school district. Knight is a middle school student who was suspended for

one too many unexcused absences. Knight threw away the notice the school gave to him, which

is understandable since most to all children do not like to get in trouble. In scenarios such as this,

there were other procedures in place. Letters in the mail and a phone call are two more warnings

for the parents, however, the school district did not follow through on that end. At the start of his

suspension, not only was Knight’s parents unaware, but Ray happened to be shot his first day of

it starting, tying both situations together in one. Who is truly at fault for Ray Knight getting shot?

One case that is in favor of Knight’s side is Markowitz versus Arizona Parks Board

(1985). This case is about a man named David Markowitz who went to Lake Havasu, a US

government owned lake that is leased by the state of Arizona when he was fifteen with a group

of friends. Markowitz found a cove that looked liked a diving spot well used and attempted to

dive off the ledge successfully since his friend had done so prior and approximately fifteen

people were wading in the area along with his friend. Since there was no signs that signified that

this was jump was dangerous, this led to Markowitz believing it was okay to dive into the water.

Unfortunately, Markowitz’s dive was not successful as he hit his head on a sandbar and resulted

in being paralyzed. This case signifies duty and how important it is to follow it. Just like how if

there was no diving signs around for Markowitz to be aware, if the school district would have

followed their duty by sending out more than one notice that Ray could (and did) throw away

easily, Knight’s parents would have been aware of the circumstances and Ray most likely would

not have been shot.

TORT AND LIABILITY CASE SCENARIO
3
Another case that supports Knight is Collette versus Tolleson Unified School District

(2002). In this court case, Zachary Thomason, who was a student at Westview High School, left

campus during lunch with his friends to get food from the mall. At Westview High School, you

must have not only parent’s permission, but also have a GPA of 3.0 on higher as well as a lunch

pass in order to leave campus. With guards watching each exit, Thomason was approached

before leaving and explained to the guard needed books for his next class. Though the guard was

persistent with saying no, Thomason explained he was going anyways with the guard firmly

explaining to hurry. After Thomason left the guard, he picked up his friends, went to eat lunch

and were on their way back. Since the school only allotted fifty minutes, Thomason felt rushed to

hurry back which led to him to accelerating on the road and getting into a car accident. This case

also shows how duty and due diligence could have changed the lives of people. If the guard

wouldn’t have let Zachary go in the first place and done his duty, Zachary would have stayed on

campus that day. If the district would have followed their proper steps that were set in the

beginning, Knight’s parents would have known about his upcoming suspension and could have

taken proper measures for him.

A case that’s against Knight is Ontiveros versus Borak (1983). This court case is about

Reuban Flores getting into a car accident after having more drinks than he should have had at

two different bars. Flores was a regular at Peter Borak’s bar and usually came after work to have

some drinks. He was quoted to have quite a few beers before leaving, going to another bar across

the street, and then returning to Borak’s bar and drinking until it closed. Borak left the bar once it

closed, got into his car and proceeded to drive until he hit a fire hydrant, swerved twice, and even

claimed to have hit a man. With a Blood Alcohol Concentration (BAC) of .33 as tested by the
TORT AND LIABILITY CASE SCENARIO
4
police, Borak was not in a good position. Borak had survived the accident and had a fractured

skull, subdural hematoma, and liver damage which led to him having partial paralysis and a 504

mental retardation. This case reminded me of how at the end of the day, as a parent, you are

responsible for keeping up with your child and their actions. The school district should not have

had to tell you about how your child is doing in school and what they are missing/not missing

because you should be active in your child’s life. Knight’s parents should have been more aware

of their child and just like how the bar can not keep up for every patron that walks in and out of

their doors, the school district can try, but they truly can not keep up with every student in their

district. Everyone is accountable for their actions, no matter the lifestyle they live.

Another case that is against Knight is Tackett versus Pine Richland School District

(2001). In this case Sean Tackett was enrolled in Ms.Vrable’s advanced chemistry class in

Allegheny County, Pennsylvania. While working on an experiment for the class, two of his

classmates set ethyl alcohol on fire, resulting in Tackett getting severe burns. While there was

equipment to avoid this situation, Ms.Vrable didn’t tell the students to work on the experiment

under it. Tackett filed a suit due to negligent for failing to have the correct equipment on the

premises, not inspecting the premises before the experiment began as well as allowing a

dangerous experiment to begin with. This case would be useful against Knight because of the

fact that keeping an eye on any and all situations is important for a parent as well as their child.

The school district hired Vrable so they are liable for what she does, since she is in their entity.

Knight’s parents could have had many notices about their child by checking on him through

report cards, calls to the schools, and notices in behavior. Just because the school did not notify
TORT AND LIABILITY CASE SCENARIO
5
you fully does not mean no signs were there to begin with. They were most likely blinded to the

situation.

Both the parents and the school district are in the wrong in my opinion. The court really

has to wonder who’s negligence was bigger in the situation. Knight’s parent have grounds to

pursue liability charges against school officials because the school district has a duty to keep up

with every child, no matter how many students are in the district. Most children tend to not get

suspended so Knight should have been on high alert to begin with. Also, if there are procedures

for a suspension, why did the district not fully follow through on those procedures? Why give a

child the letter that gets him in trouble and not take other measures to inform the parents as well?

Knight’s parents are not out of the woods on this case either. As a parent, you are responsible for

your child. Even if Ray kept getting unexcused absences, how did they not hear about this

beforehand? School districts tend to leave automated messages explaining that a child was not at

school so how did Knight’s parent not get a single one? The likelihood of Ray coming home and

deleting every message from the school district is very low. Also, after a certain amount of

absences, school police is supposed to show up at the child’s house to ask about the child, why

they are not attending school and more. Where was the school police? There are so many

questions and hypothetical situations for this case that there is no clear winner in my book since

both sides were so wrong. I’d like to hope, no matter if this was hypothetical or not, that both

sides learned more about themselves and corrected their mistakes for the future of education.
TORT AND LIABILITY CASE SCENARIO
6
References

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District 203 Ariz. 359, 54 P.3d 828 (2002)

Markowitz v. Arizona Parks Board 146 Ariz. 352 706 P.2d 364 (1985)

Ontiveros v. Borak ​136 Ariz. 500 667 P.2d 200 (1983)

Tackett v. Pine Richland School District 2374 C.D. (2001)