RUNNING HEAD: Artifact #5 1

Artifact #5
Dara Marquez
Nevada School Law EDU 210
College of Southern Nevada
Artifact #5 2

Abstract

Artifact #5 is covering a scenario where a middle school student is suspended from school for

three days. The school sends a written notice home with the student; the student throws it away.

During the first day of the suspension the student is shot while at a friend’s house. The

information relating to this case will deal with tort law. There will be a total of four cases

discussed. Two of which will be used to support the student’s case and the other two for the

school’s case. It will conclude by reviewing the information discussed, and by stating my

opinion on how the case should be decided.

Artifact #5 3

Ray Knight is a middle school student that received a suspension due to his unexcused

absences. The school district’s procedures require telephone notification and a prompt written

notice by mail to his parents; however, the only thing done for notification to the parents of the

suspension is that a notice gets sent home with the student. Knight throws the notice away. Due

to that action his parents are unaware that he is suspended. The first day of his suspension,

Knight is accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house. Tort law is what this scenario is

related to. “A tort is a civil wrong, a violation of duty, that causes harm.” (Underwood, J., &

Webb, L. D., 2006). Both parties must be heard in order to determine whether compensation

should be made and if the school district is to be held at fault. More specifically, there are both

intentional and unintentional types of torts: intentional tort and unintentional tort. Where

intentional tort deals with: trespass, assault, battery and defamation. The unintentional tort is

what pertains to this scenario, and that deals with: negligence and strict liability.

Another aspect of tort law, that deals with unintentional tort, is contributory and

comparative negligence. “Under contributory negligence, if the plaintiff has been negligent and

caused any part of his or her own damages, there is no recovery. It is an all-or-nothing approach.

Comparative negligence apportions the damage award among the negligent parties depending on

the relative degree of fault (contribution) to the injuries.” (Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D., 2006).

When presented with the question of “is someone at fault?”, tort law brings several cases to the

table to aide in answering that particular question. To gain clarification for the different cases

that will be discussed the different elements of negligence must by brought to light. They

include:

Duty: The defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from unreasonable risks.

Breach: The duty was breached by the failure to exercise an appropriate standard of care.
Artifact #5 4

Causation: There was a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting

injury.

Injury: An actual injury resulted.

(Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D., 2006).

Having this information will greatly assist in understanding the discussions of the court cases

that will be used to support each side of the scenario.

Beginning with Ray Knight’s side, two previous court cases will be looked at and used to

support him with the rulings. Negligence on the school district’s part must be found. The 1975

case of Goss v Lopez can be used to support Knight’s side. Goss v Lopez occurred when

students from an Ohio high school had been given a 10-day suspension without a hearing. They

filed suit against the school district for violating their rights. The case was taken to the Supreme

Court where it was ruled in favor of the student’s. It was found that the students were protected

by the Due Process Clause, and that those rights could not be taken away without minimum

procedures required by the Clause (Goss v. Lopez, n.d.. Oyez). When looking to apply this same

reasoning to the Knight v School District, the failure to give Knight his proper due process

proves fault on the school’s part. We are aware that by not providing a phone call and mailed

written notice to Knight’s parents, the school did not carry out the due process thoroughly.

Secondly, the 2006 case of Carr v School Board of Pasco County. This case occurred when

Michael Carr sustained a serious injury to his knee from colliding with benches, that were close

to the track, while running during his physical education class. His parents filed suit against the

school board. The benches were school property and required the school to be responsible for

their maintenance. Whether a bench was on the track or merely a few inches from the edge of
Artifact #5 5

the track, a jury could determine that it was reasonably foreseeable that an inexperienced runner,

racing in a crowd, could strike the bench and sustain a significant injury. This determination was

specifically supported by the testimony of one of the instructors that the benches were

traditionally kept six feet from the track for this very reason. The jury returned a verdict finding

the School Board negligent (CARR v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PASCO COUNTY, 2006, March

03). This case is used to support Knight’s side because it ruled against the school board due to

negligence. Knight could use this case to strength his argument of the school being negligent in

his own scenario, thus proving that the school should be found at fault.

Moving on to the School District’s side. Supporting their side are two previous cases as

well. The first being the 2006 case of Sanford v Stiles. Sanford v Stiles occurred when Michael

Carr had given an ex-girlfriend a note on November 26th, 2002, where he mentioned killing

himself. The ex-girlfriend was concerned for him and took the note to the office. The note was

given to his counselor, Pamela Stiles. Stiles set up a meeting with Carr where she spoke with

him as a means of determining whether he did in fact seem suicidal. Stiles ended up speaking

with him on two separate occasions and both times did not see him as being suicidal. She did not

refer him to the psychiatrist. He committed suicide on December 4th, 2002. His mother filed suit

against Stiles and the school district. The district court ruled that Sanford’s claims failed. It

could not be proved that Stiles had created the danger to Michael. Also, the District Court

rejected the state law negligence claim against Stiles because Sanford could not prove causation

under tort law and because Stiles was entitled to immunity under Pennsylvania law (SANFORD

v. STILES, 2006, August 02). The School District in Knight v. School District is able to use this

case because the issue surrounding the student has been addressed. In Sanford v Stiles Michael

had a meeting with his counselor and in Knight v School District the school did send notice
Artifact #5 6

home with him. In Knight’s case it was his personal choice to not give his parents the notice of

his suspension and even further to go to his friend’s house. In line with the fact that it was

Michael Carr’s choice to commit suicide instead of talking about his issues with the counselor or

his friends and family. The schools did nothing to persuade or encourage either of those choices

made by the students.

The second case for supporting the School District is the 2002 case of Collette v

Tolleson Unified School District. Collette v Tolleson occurred when Zachary Thomason, a

student at Westview High School, left school during lunch without permission. The high school

had a policy in which particular students with good grades and parental permission could leave

campus for a 50-minute allotted lunch break. Thomason was not one of those students and was

spoken to by one of the school guards about not leaving campus. Upon returning to campus

Thomason caused a car accident in which the plaintiffs were injured. The plaintiffs claim that

the District, by its policy, had a duty to protect the general public from the negligent driving of

students who left campus. Second, they argue that the District created an unreasonable risk of

harm to the motoring public by placing rigid time constraints on student lunch breaks. The court

found that there is no common law duty to control the conduct of a third person so as to prevent

harm from befalling another. And in regards to creating unreasonable risk Thomason had done

nothing on school grounds prior to the accident to hinder his driving abilities nor did the time

restraint become relevant because the time limit was not a voluntary limitation, but one that had

been previously enforced. The court ruled in favor or the School District (COLLETTE v.

TOLLESON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 214, 2002, September 12). The School

District in the Knight v. School District case can use this particular case to support its side by

stating that there is no duty for them to provide protection to the student when not on school
Artifact #5 7

grounds. There was no way the school could have foreseen that Thomason’s driving would

result in an accident and injure others. Nor is there way to foresee that Ray Knight would be

shot while on suspension. Showing there is no fault from the School District. Also, something

worthy of mentioning when reviewing all of these cases is comparative negligence. This is a

perfect point in which the courts could use comparative negligence in their decision with the

Knight v. School District case. Since Knight had been the one to go to his friend’s instead of

staying home during his duration of suspension the factor that his own choices and actions lead

to his injury needs to be accounted for.

I would like to conclude by stating that I feel the court should be in favor of the School

District. The cases they have to support their side are much stronger and more relatable when

comparing them to the Knight v. School District case. Ray Knight made his own decisions and

the school district has no reason to be held responsible for that fact.
Artifact #5 8

Reference

CARR v. SCHOOL BOARD OF PASCO COUNTY. (2006, March 03). Retrieved

November 23, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-district-court-of-
appeal/1143031.html
COLLETTE v. TOLLESON UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 214. (2002, September
12). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-
appeals/1291266.html
Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved November 23, 2016, from
https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898
SANFORD v. STILES. (2006, August 02). Retrieved November 23, 2016, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1380734.html
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and
applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.