Tort and Liability Quinn 1

Artifact #3
Tort and Liability
Erin Quinn
EDU 210
19 April 2019
Tort and Liability Quinn 2

Ray Knight is a middle school student who was suspended from school for unexcused

absences. When the school suspended him, they gave him a written notice to take home to his

parents to inform them of this occurrence. However, Knight threw away the notice and never

informed his parents of his suspension. In this instance, the parents never received notification of

the suspension, and the school did not follow policy and inform the parents via telephone. On the

first day of his three-day suspension, Knight visited a friend’s house, where he was shot.

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1990) is the first case that I will be

arguing in favor of the parents. As school policies are ever changing, many are implemented for

the safety of the student. One such policy is the procedure for notification of the parents for

occurrences with their child. As the policy is stated, the parents must be orally notified, as well

as with a written notice to inform. In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery

County (1990), these policies failed to be implemented with drastic results. In this case, two

school counselors were found to be negligent after failing to report a student’s suicidal

statements. When the counselors attempted to pursue these statements, they in turn did not

inform the parents of the student of the happenings of their child. The father of the student won a

wrongful death suit and the court found the school responsible for the student’s death. In the case

of Ray Knight, the school failed to inform the parents of the suspension, with similar drastic

results. As educators, it is our responsibility to offer each student a safe environment, and

making decisions on their behalf. I believe that Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery

County (1990) shows the necessity to inform parents about their child’s wellbeing orally. As

Knight was suspended for truancy, the school should have thought reasonably before letting him

inform his parents. In this instance, the parents would have been able to keep the child at home
Tort and Liability Quinn 3

and under a watchful eye. Consequently, the school in this case committed a negligent act that

resulted in an injury to a student, and should rule in favor of the parents.

DC v. St Landry Parish School Board (2001) is the second case that I will be arguing in

favor of the parents. This case also highlights the severity of the school’s negligence in regards

to their students well-being, by showing a similar instance where a student was harmed. In this

case, a middle school student was allowed to check herself out of school for the day, and while

on her way home, she was sexually assaulted. Her parents alleged that the school district did not

follow their procedures and allowed her to leave school campus, which resulted in injury to the

student. The court found the school liable for the student’s injuries because it breached a duty of

care. The court specifically cited the high crime environment surrounding the school, and that the

school should have been more aware of the consequences, should the student be traveling alone.

DC v. St Landry Parish School Board (2001) highlights the necessity of the school to supervise

all students. Although Knight was suspended, the school should have taking more precautions in

preventing negative actions to the student. Should Knight have been attending school the day he

was shot, he would have been under the vigilant eye of the school officials and in turn, he would

have been safe from harm. Again, it is the duty of the school to mind the students that are

entrusted in their care. Similar to DC v. St Landry Parish School Board (2001), the school in the

case of Ray Knight should have followed the procedure and given the parents of the student an

oral notice. Failing to follow policy resulted in the injury to the student, and the school should be

held responsible for the student being shot.

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001) is the first case that I will be arguing in

favor of the school. Although school districts have policies in effect to keep their students safe,

in some instances, the students do not follow the posted rules and cause injury to themselves.
Tort and Liability Quinn 4

Highlighted in the case of Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001), the courts ruled that

students are under a duty of care when they are in the school buildings, and ultimately, schools

cannot prevent injury to those students who choose to leave school grounds. In the case of

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001), two students were horse playing, when one

student ran into a public street and was hit by an oncoming vehicle. As this accident occurred

before school and not on school property, the courts ruled in favor of the school citing that the

school had no duty to protect a student who was not on the school property, and unfortunately,

not in their custody. In the case of Ray Knight, the student was injured while not on school

property and not in their custody. The school should not be found liable to the injury of the

student, because for all we know, Knight may not have even arrived at school that day. As noted

in Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, if a student chooses to leave school property, they

are no longer protected under the umbrella of the school, and in turn, their actions should not

affect the culpability of the school. Although schools have an obligation to the safety of the

student, they cannot prevent unseen dangers that might arise on a given day. According to this

evidence, the school in the Knight case cannot be held responsible for the poor choices made by

the student.

Gilbert v. Bottle (2011) is the second case that I will be arguing in favor of the school. In

this case, Gilbert was a passenger in a car where she failed to secure herself in a seatbelt. When

the vehicle was involved in an accident, she was ejected from the vehicle and suffered a

traumatic brain injury. This case highlights a causation of contributory negligence. When a

person is guilty of this negligence, they commit actions that contribute to their injury. Gilbert

knowingly chose not to wear a seatbelt, and as a result was thrown from the vehicle, which could

have been prevented, had she chose to wear a seatbelt. In the case of Ray Knight, the student
Tort and Liability Quinn 5

knowingly chose not to inform his parents of his suspension, and chose to reject his safe

environment by visiting a friend’s house. I believe that, according to Gilbert v. Bottle (2011), the

court will side in favor of the school district because Knight is a contributing factor in his injury.

If Knight had informed his parents, he would have been kept safe and in corresponding fashion,

would not have been shot.

In the case of Ray Knight, I believe that the court will find the school at fault. According

to Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1990), it is imperative that we inform

parents about their children. As these students are in school custody for five days a week, the

schools are more in tuned with these student’s needs, and in turn, should be more aware of their

lives. They are the eyes and ears of the parents, and must keep open lines of communication with

the parents, so that they may collaborate to help the students succeed. Moreover, in the case of

DC v. St Landry Parish School Board (2001), the school was found at fault for not supervising

the students in their care. As Knight is their student, the school should have acted sensibly when

they gave the student the letter of suspension, therefore, the school should be held liable for the

safety of the student. However, according to Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001), if

the student knowingly leaves school grounds and puts their safety in jeopardy, the student should

be held accountable for their actions. In this instance, Knight is partially responsible for his

situation. If he had chosen wisely, he would not have been shot on that fateful day.

Consequently, according to Gilbert v. Bottle (2011), contributory negligence will factor into the

result of this case. As Knight contributed negligently, causing his own injury, the court should

determine the degrees of fault, and in turn, find both parties liable. However, I do believe that

Knight’s contribution of fault is less than the school’s contribution. Knight should have acted

responsibly and given his parents his suspension notice, but the school should have followed
Tort and Liability Quinn 6

policy and informed the parents orally. As educators, our job is to keep our students safe, and in

this instance, both parties failed each other.

Tort and Liability Quinn 7

References:

DC v. ST LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD 802 So.2d 19 (2001). Retrieved 18 Apr 2019.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802so2d191819
EISEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION OF MONTGOMERY COUNTY 324 Md. 376 (1991).
Retrieved 18 Apr 2019. https://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324md3761672
GILBERT v. BOTTLE BCSC 1389 (2011). Retrieved 18 Apr 2019.
https://www.achesonlaw.ca/caselaw/2011bcsc1389/
GLASER v. EMPORIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 253 (2001). Retrieved 18 Apr
2019. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1364854.html