TORT AND LIABLITY 1

Tort and Liability

Adrian E. Duarte

College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABLITY 2

Adrian Duarte

Dale Warby

EDU 210

Date (20/09/2018)

Tort and Liability

To what extent will a school become liable for a failure to follow district, state, or federal

protocol standards? Will the school district’s Board of Trustees, Superintendent, or State Board

of Education take disciplinary measures against a school for falling short of what is demanded?

After all, school principals are held responsible to take actions necessary to ensure the safety of

all students and school personnel. Does negligence on the school’s behalf that has led to injury

constitute for a lawsuit? In the arraigned case, Ray Knight, a middle school student, was

suspended for having several truancies. Knight, while suspended, was shot while visiting his

friend’s house. Due to the school’s lack of following district-established suspension procedures,

Ray Knight’s parents, unknowing of the suspension, did not receive the required two notices that

their child was going to be suspended. Consequently, while Ray Knight was on suspension, he

was accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house. Brought before a court, the plaintiff party,

Ray’s parents, are pursuing liability charges against school officials.

When it comes to negligence, many factors must be proven to determine whether a claim

is justifiable and whether or not a plaintiff can claim damagers. In School Law for Teachers:

Concepts and Applications (2006), Author Julie Underwood corroborates the school’s duty to

adequately supervise students stating, “A duty to supervise exists while students are in the

custody or control of the school (e.g., on school property during the school day, on field trips, or
TORT AND LIABLITY 3

during extracurricular activities)” (Underwood, 2006, pg. 101). To the school’s (defendant)

defense, they may argue that Ray Knight was not under their duty to supervise, as he was not on

school property. Under the same precedent and to support the defendant’s arguments, in the case

of Collette v. Tolleson Unified High School District, four students, one of which was killed and

three who were injured, went during their lunch break to the mall and upon returning were

involved in a motor vehicle accident off-campus. In this case, plaintiffs Barbara C. Collette,

Scott E. MacFarland, and  Holly L. Scofield, argued that the school was negligent for allowing

the students to leave, as the school enforces a closed-campus (prohibiting unexcused students to

leave during school hours) policy. The school, contrarily, motioned that it has no duty to

adequately provide supervision to students who disobeyed school and district rules and that

ensued in injuries occurring in off-campus lunchtime accidents (Collette v. Tolleson Unified

School District No 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362 [App. 2002]). The trial court affirmed that the school

district was on just and valid grounds; thus, presenting that schools are not responsible for

supervisory duties on incidents occurring on off-school property or non-school related activities

or trips. The court in this case ruled in favor of the school district. Nonetheless, in association to

the ruling of Collette v. Tolleson Unified High School District, the school might argue to support

their side of the litigation, that Ray Knight was not in accordance with the court’s ruling, as it

was not mandatory for the school to provide supervision during his suspension.

Moreover, in addition to the Collette v. Tolleson Unified High School District trial court’s

establishment that schools are not required to provide duty to adequately supervise students on

the basis that a student be off school property, is not on a field trip, or is not during an

extracurricular activity (Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362

[App. 2002]), the school may also argue that based on the 2001 Glaser v. Emporia Unified
TORT AND LIABLITY 4

School District court case, Ray Knight was in the custody and supervision of the parents and no

longer the school’s when he left the school property. This court case’s ruling establishes that a

school is not required by duty to supervise or protect students who are not in a school building or

under school custody or control (Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, No. 253, 21 P.3d

573 [Kan. 2001]); thus, justifying a basis for why the school is not capable of being sued for

damages based on negligence for what the plaintiffs claim to be “Inadequate supervision of

students.” And although the school did fail to adequately inform the parents of Ray’s suspension

by following district standards, the state and federal law remains that schools are still not liable,

despite their error, for any circumstances (including Ray’s) where it does not involve a direct

correlation to school instruction, trips, or extracurricular activities.

In the plaintiff’s legal proceeding, Ray Knight’s parents believe that the school is to be

held liable for damages, for they failed to provide adequate notice by telephone notification and

by a written notice sent through the mail addressed to the parents. Moreover, this case is similar

to the 2002 court case Day v. Ouachita Parish School Board brought forth by Amy Kelly where

her son, Morgan Day, injured his back when partaking in a weightlifting class for his freshman

football team. When Morgan brought in a medical excusal note, the coach insisted that he

perform a “dumbbell power clean push press,” an upper body exercise despite his lower-back

injury, Morgan suffered from more severe pain (Day v. Ouachita Parish School Board, 833 So.2d

343 [2002]). In this case, the court ruled based on the past case of Robbins v. State Ex Rel. Dept.

of Labor that “General damages involve mental or physical pain and suffering, inconvenience,

loss of intellectual or physical enjoyment or other losses of lifestyle that cannot be definitively

measured in monetary terms” (Robbins v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Labor, 728 So. 2d 991 [1999]).

Although the school may argue that based on the proposed case that Morgan Day was in the
TORT AND LIABLITY 5

school at the time of injury, Ray Knight’s parents may rebuttal to the fact that it was the same

negligence of not following mandated protocols and standards that resulted in the death of their

child; consequently causing “…Mental or physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss of

intellectual or physical enjoyment or other losses of lifestyle that cannot be definitively measured

in monetary terms” (Robbins v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Labor, 728 So. 2d 991 [1999]), as the

court ruled in the litigation proceeding.

Furthermore, Ray Knight’s parents, not properly being informed of their son’s suspension

by either phone-call, certified letter by mail, attending a required parent conference, or having a

return slip be signed that states they are aware of the suspension, may also argue that based on

the educational case law Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School District, if the parent is not

properly informed, the school will remain liable for the student. In the court case, the California

Court of Appeals affirmed that "A school district may be held liable for injuries suffered by a

student off school premises and after school hours when those injuries are the result of the

school's negligence while the student was on school premises" (Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified

School District 143 Cal. App. 3d 292, 192 Cal. Rptr. 10,10 [1983]).

When it comes to following mandated standards and protocols, educators, schools, and

the district must all comply and enforce these policies. Teachers are required to conduct accurate

attendance each and every day, or face possible disciplinary actions for marking students truant.

School administrators must ensure that their school is safe and equitable and in compliance with

all civil rights and amendments proposed by our nation’s Constitution. In terms of the Knight’s

case, the school failed to provide adequate notification to the parents, who were unaware of the

suspension, and thought that their child was under supervisory custody in school. As a result of

the school’s failure, Ray Knight’s parents were victims to their son’s preventable death. For one,
TORT AND LIABLITY 6

as established in Robbins v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Labor, Knight’s parents are more than capable

of pursing a litigation case against the school for damages, as it was established in the court’s

ruling that “General damages involve mental or physical pain and suffering, inconvenience, loss

of intellectual or physical enjoyment or other losses of lifestyle that cannot be definitively

measured in monetary terms” (Robbins v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Labor, 728 So. 2d 991 [1999]).

Furthermore, the school’s error not only sanctions for a lawsuit to be filed from the plaintiffs, but

also allows for disciplinary actions to be taken by the superintendent of the school district, and

possibly the State Board of Education. Moreover, on the premise that the parents were not

informed that their child was suspended, Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School District

concludes that the school remains liable for the student, even if the student is not on the school

property, given it is the fault of the school’s for failing to inform the parents or guardians. In the

Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School District court case, the California Court of Appeals

affirmed that "A school district may be held liable for injuries suffered by a student off school

premises and after school hours when those injuries are the result of the school's negligence

while the student was on school premises" (Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School District 143

Cal. App. 3d 292, 192 Cal. Rptr. 10,10 [1983]).

TORT AND LIABLITY 7

References

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362 (App. 2002)

Day v. Ouachita Parish School Board, 833 So.2d 343 (2002)

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, No. 253, 21 P.3d 573 (Kan. 2001)

Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School District 143 Cal. App. 3d 292, 192 Cal. Rptr. 10,10

(1983)

Robbins v. State Ex Rel. Dept. of Labor, 728 So. 2d 991 (1999)

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.