Running Head: TORT AND LIABILITY

Tort and Liability

Meghan Arellano
EDU 210 Spring College of Southern Nevada

Summary
After many unexcused absences, a young middle school student Ray Knight was
suspended from his school. He was sent home with a notice but it was thrown away into the
garbage without a second thought and the school forgot to notify the parents through the phone.
The student was then shot at a friends house the next day. His parents promptly sued the school
for negligence to notify them of his suspension, because it was school protocol to phone the
parents after a student was punished. They are seeking liability charges, which means they want
money compensation for this incident.
Reasons Parents can Lose Claim
The parents of Knight are claiming that the school was negligent and are to be blamed for
the accident that occurred with their son. In another tragic event, a young man named Michael
Sanford committed suicide after going to his guidance counselor twice beforehand; the case of
Sanford v. Stiles (2006). Michael Sanford had written a note to his ex-girlfriend and in the note
he mentioned some suicidal behavior. After giving the note to her counselor, the counselor called
Michael to see if he wanted to discuss any problems he was having emotionally, academically or
otherwise. The young man showed no verbal signs of suicidal behavior and friends and teacher
report that Michael looked and seemed to have felt fine. The guidance counselor, Pamela Stiles
was sued for liability, that she should have contacted the mother after their meeting. However,
because Michael did not show signs of suicide, Stiles did not see the need to call her or the
school psychologist. She had followed protocol and filed a report of their discussion. There is no
evidence supporting Michaels mothers claim that she or the school should be liable for his
unfortunate death.

In another case, Collette v Tolleson Unified School District (2002), five students suffered
major injuries and death after getting into a motor vehicle accident. Zachary Thomas, the driver,
had left the school campus for lunch and was heading to the mall with his friends. Students at
this school were only allowed to leave the campus if they had their ID with them, which he did
not. The student had left anyway and refused to come back after the school guard called out for
him, though the guard did not attempt to physically bring him back into the school. On their way
back from the mall, he collided with another car. The parents sued the school for negligence of
students leaving the school property during school hours. The court ruled in favor of the School
District because when the student left the school they posed no threat (2002) to themselves or
others. In other words, the school could have never predicted the car accident and therefore were
not at fault.
Reasons Parents Can Win Claim
Ray Knights school was supposed to call the parents after giving Ray his suspension.
Because the school of Ray Knight did not follow school protocol, they can still be blamed with
the incident of Knights accident. In the case of Goss v Lopez (1975), after suspending nine
students from school for ten days, they sued the school district for not giving them a fair hearing.
At the time, Ohio did not have a law that required schools to give students hearings after being
suspended; however, the courts found in favor of the students. They said that their rights were
being violated for not being given due process. The law had to be changed to be fair to all of its
citizens, including students.
In our last case, we learn a little about comparative and contributory negligence.
Contributory negligence is when the plaintiff is also at fault after injury has occurred.

Comparative negligence is then followed and in some states, the plaintiff only gets the amount of
money that they did not contribute to the injury. If, for example, the jury finds the plaintiff to
contribute 80% of the injury, they will only get 20% of the liability claim. So we turn again to
our last case, Carr v School Board of Pasco County (2006). Michael Carr was a young high
school student who had hoped to try out for the wrestling team. In order to train, he decided to
participate in an event the school calls the Presidents Challenge. One of the challenges was a
timed mile that the students had to walk or run. The faster runners were told to move into the
inner circle of the track. As Michael gained speed and moved towards the inner circle, witness
report that there was a student in front of him that forced him to move over to the left. He then by
accident hit a metal bench that was left on the track, injuring his leg. The jury was asked whether
or not Carr had contributed in his injury and whether he could have prevented the accident
himself. The jury found that Carr was not at fault for his injury and that the school was negligent
for not being careful and taking the portable bench off of the track and at a safer distance away
from the runners.
Conclusion
After going over the laws and cases for the situation between Ray Knight and the school
district I come to the conclusion that Knights parents would most likely lose their claim. Though
the school did have a duty to call parents, they did send out a note that Ray tossed away and did
not bother to tell his own parents about the suspension. The school could not have known or
predicted that Ray would get hurt the next day, for when he left, he did not seem to be a threat to
himself or to others. They cannot be held accountable for Rays misfortune.

References
Carr v School Board of Pasco County, No.2D05-2388. (District Court of Appeal of
Florida,Second District. March 3, 2006).
Collette v Tollesson Unified School District, No.1 CA-CV 01-0490. (Court of Appeals of
Arizona,Division 1, Department B. September 12, 2002).
Goss v Lopez, No. 73-898 (Burger Court January 22, 1975).
Sanford v Stiles, No.04-4496. (United States Court of Appeals,Third Circuit. August 2, 2006).