Running Head: ARTIFACT #5 1

Artifact #5

Deidra Marie Glaser

College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT #5
2

Abstract:

The following article is a brief comparison of different school law cases in regards to tort

liability, negligences and student safety. The main situation involves Ray Knight, a middle

school student, who was injured by a gunshot wound while at a friends house while on

suspension. The young student was on a three day suspension at the time, and proper protocol

was not followed in regards to the suspensions, so the students parent technically did not know

about it. The cases that are being analyzed in response to the this scenario are: ​Sanford vs. Stiles,

Goss v. Lopez, Maldonado v. Tuckahoe, ​and ​Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District.​ In

a short conclusion, the school district and the parents could be both held liable under

“comparative negligence,” or the school district might be held complete liable for violating the

student due process rights, and considered capable of preventing the situation.
ARTIFACT #5
3

It is always a terrible thing when a student gets suspended or expelled from school.

However, it happens, regardless of grade level. Ray Knight, a middle school student, was

suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. During his first day of suspension, Ray was

accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house. His parents had no knowledge of the

suspension, because the only notice the school sent was a written one that was giving to the

student, who threw it away. Normally, school district procedures requires a telephone

notification and a prompt written notice by mail. Ray was severely injured and was sent to the

hospital for his injuries. His parents are outraged by the circumstances of the situation and now

want to sue the school district.

Was this situation preventable? Who is at fault here? What kind of laws pertain to this

kind of situation? According to the textbook, ​The Legal Rights of Teachers and Students,​ in

short, a tort can be seen as a civil wrong. It explains that tort law offers civil rather than criminal

remedies to individuals for harms caused by the unreasonable conduct of others. One category of

tort law is negligence which is the “breach of one’s legal duty to protect others from

unreasonable risks of harm.” It further goes on to describe how there are four elements that need

to be present in order to make a successful claim under this branch of the law: “one, the

defendant has the duty to protect the plaintiff; two, the duty is breached by the failure to exercise

an appropriate standard of care; three, the negligent conduct is the proximate or legal cause of

the injury; four, an actual injury occurs” (Cambron,2014). Regarding Ray’s situation, all four

elements necessary to have this case be considered under negligence seem to have occurred, or at

least feasible.
ARTIFACT #5
4

In regards to the case, of ​Sanford vs. Stiles,​ where a mother, Ms. Kathleen Sanford sued a

guidance counselor, Ms.Pamela Stiles, for negligence and held her liable for her son's death

under a state-created danger theory. Michael Sanford was only sixteen years old when he

committed suicide in his home. The rulings for the case according to the website,

www.caselaw.findlaw.com, said the courts found:

The District Court determined that the substantive due process claims brought

against both Defendants failed.   Specifically, a reasonable jury could not

conclude that Stiles “create[d] the danger” to Michael or that her conduct

exceeded mere negligence.   The District Court also rejected Sanford's claim of

municipal liability against the East Penn School District because Sanford failed to

create a genuine issue of material fact as to whether Stiles caused an underlying

constitutional violation. Finally, the District Court rejected the state law

negligence claim against Stiles both because Sanford could not prove causation

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

law (Thomson, 2018).

In the end, Ms.Stile’s was not found guilty, and did not meet all of the requirements for the

situation to be considered negligent. It was really quite a tragic story. It started off with Michael

writing a note to a previous girlfriend, that honestly sounded like a typical emotional middle

school love note; however, the student had mentioned that the thought of this girl with someone

else made him “want to kill himself.” The little girl brought the note to the counselor just to be

cautious. Ms. Stiles immediately went and spoke with Michael and did not see any apparent

warning signs. Following, she decided to even speak with another one of his friends, who
ARTIFACT #5
5

regarded Michael as doing fine, just as the little girl had also done. She spoke with Michael one

last time regarding the note, because he had asked to talk to the counselor about it. He only

wanted to know who had shown it to her and she told him she could not answer that question.

The following evening Michael committed suicide.

This case is similar to the one concerning Ray Knight, because both students were

regrettably killed, and the incidents prior to the unfortunate accidents were school related

functions that could have possibly led up to the tragic event and be considered negligence. Be

that as it may, is this still the schools fault? When looking back, for Ray’s case the proper note

was not sent home, and in turn, proper precautions were not taken, where as they were with Ms.

Stiles, who conducted a reasonable interview and evaluation of her student. Therefore, the school

district could be held liable for negligence under this ruling concerning Ray’s situation.

Another major factor in this case concerns the right to the child’s due process rights in

regards to the suspension. According to the textbook, ​The Legal Rights of Teachers and Students​:

In 1975, the Supreme Court provided substantial clarification regarding the

constitutional rights of students faced with short-term suspensions. In ​Goss v.

Lopez​, the Court held that minimum due process must be provided before a

student is suspended for even a brief period of time. Recognizing that a student’s

state-created property right to an education is protected by the Fourteenth

Amendment, the Court ruled that such a right cannot be impaired unless the

student is afforded notice of the charges and an opportunity to refute them before

an impartial decision maker (Cambron, 2014).

ARTIFACT #5
6

All the student was given was a note to hand deliver to the parents, and of course, the student

proceeded to throw it away, and so the parents of the child were not notified. This is a direct

violation with state policy. Furthermore, during the incident the school would have been

considered the responsible party at the time as far as the parents were concerned, because the

school failed to provide an accurate “standard of care” in regards to the suspension policy and

communication regarding the matter. The parents thought the student was at school, but instead

was off somewhere else, and in turn the student was injured, and this possibly could have been

prevented if the proper notifications and communications would have been made on the behalf of

the school. If anything, the school could be held under “comparative negligence” which is where

one or more parties are at fault and share the blame.

In contrast, the school is technically not responsible for accidents that occur off campus

grounds, unless it is a school related event. In addition, if the student was not suspended, and was

just truant from school, the school district would not be held liable. In the case of ​Maldonado v.

Tuckahoe​, where one female student was attacked in her home by another male student after

multiple threats at school. The school district was not found liable, because it is beyond the duty

and level of care required by the school to administer or staff to provide safety measures once a

student is either off campus, or after the school day. By a Thomson Reuters Company article, it

stated that “the test to be applied is whether under all the circumstances the chain of events that

followed the negligent act or omission was a normal or foreseeable consequence of the situation

created by the school's negligence...” concluding that, “under the circumstances of this case, the

injured plaintiff's voluntary act of allowing Brian Morris into her home, notwithstanding the

prior threats he had allegedly made against her, constituted a superseding intervening act which
ARTIFACT #5
7

severed any link between the defendants' alleged negligence and her injuries” (Thomson, 2018).

Moreover, the school district cannot be held responsible for the actions of their students or

teachers unless the situation or circumstances clearly pertain to a school event or function. Mr.

Knight was a outside of school, and recklessly at a friend's house when the incident occured.

Bearing this in mind, the Courts might find the school district not liable for the student’s injuries.

Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. ​case which sadly involved a student

getting hit at a bus stop. The problems pertaining to this case was the event occured after school,

and the bus stop was technically located on a very busy and dangerous street. The Courts ended

up ruling stating “that there was sufficient evidence presented from which a jury could find that

the District breached its duty to protect Andrew from a foreseeable risk of harm.” as stated from

a caselaw website, “the jury found that the Warringtons had suffered $6,000,000 in damages and

allocated forty-five percent of the fault to Andrew, forty percent of the fault to his parents, and

fifteen percent of the fault to the District” (Grant, 1996). This kind of judgement can be

classified under “comparative negligence” in which multiple parties share the blame. As it relates

to Ray, the school district may try to defend their case with the notion or idea that the whole

situation is not their fault.

Based off of the evidence and previous cases the courts would rule similar to that of

Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School Dist., ​and that the final answer would be classified

under “comparative negligence" on behalf of the plaintiffs and defendants. The Courts would

also probably side with the plaintiff's more due to the fact that their due process rights were

violated. The parents did not receive appropriate notification of their child’s suspension,
ARTIFACT #5
8

therefore had no knowledge of the events taking place. In turn, the school district could have

possibly prevented this.

In the long run was this situation preventable? In my opinion, if the parents would have

received the proper notifications about the suspension it is possible the situation could have been

prevented. However, the student was being suspended for truancy, and if the situation had

occured prior to the truancy charge the school district would not be at fault. In turn, I think both

parties are guilty.

ARTIFACT #5
9

References:

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. (2014). ​Legal Rights of Teachers and

Students​. (Third edition). Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

GRANT, P.J., and EHRLICH, J. (1996). Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. No. 3,

928 P. 2d 673 - Ariz: Court of Appeals, 1st Div., Dept. B 1996. Retrieved from

https://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=17478807859928183032&q=Warrington

v. Tempe Elementary School District&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29&as_vis=1

Thomson Reuters. (2018). FindLaw's New York Supreme Court case and opinions. Retrieved

from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ny-supreme-court/1171158.html

Thomson Reuters. (2018). FindLaw's United States Third Circuit case and opinions. Retrieved

from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1380734.html