Running head: PORTFOLIO #3: TORT AND LIABILITY

Portfolio #3: Tort and Liability

Danielle Pertile
EDU210
10/10/2015
Dr. Ce Isbell

PORTFOLIO #3
2

: TORT AND LIABILITY

Introduction

In the case of Knight v. School District, Ray Knight was suspended from school because
of too many unexcused absences. According to school board policy, the school must send a
written note home with the student in addition to informing the parents of the student about the
suspension via telephone call. The school failed to inform the parents via telephone about Rays
suspension, and only sent a note home. Ray threw the note away, and his parents remained
unaware of his suspension. On the first day of his suspension, Ray Knight was accidentally shot
while at a friends house.
Knights Side
Knight can easily argue negligence in his case. Because the school district did not
properly give notice to the students parents, the parents would not have made any provisions for
their child during the school day, as they assumed he would be under the supervision of teachers
at school. In the case of D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board (2001), the court sided with the
plaintiff because the school improperly signed out a middle school student and allowed her to
walk home alone, at which time she was sexually molested. The court ruled that there had been a
breach of duty of reasonable supervision.
Likewise, because Knights parents had not been properly notified, they assumed the
school would have been supervising Knight during the school day. In the case of Thomas v. City
Lights School, Inc. (2000), the school board breached its duty of supervision when a student was
attacked by other students while on a field trip. The courts have set a precedent that if the child is
under school custody, the school owes a duty of supervision. Because the school improperly gave

PORTFOLIO #3
3

: TORT AND LIABILITY

notice about the students suspension, there was no reason for the parents to believe that the
student was not under school custody at the time of him being shot.
The School Districts Side
The school district would argue that because the student was formally suspended and not
on school grounds, they should not be held liable for Knightss injuries. In the case of Glaser v.
Emporia Unified School District No. 253 (2001), the courts found Emporia school district not
liable for the injuries sustained by a seventh grade student who was hit by a car just outside of
school grounds before the school day. The court ruled that because the student was not on school
property and because the school day had not yet begun, the school had not breached their duty of
supervision.
At the very least the School District will also argue comparative negligence based on the
assumption of risk on Knights part. The School District could point out that Knight held
responsibility for giving the suspension note to his parents, his parents had a responsibility to
actively stay informed on their childs school progress, and also that Knight should have
understood the consequences of using or being near someone using a gun. In the case of Cave v.
Burt (2004) the school was found to be not liable for injuries sustained when a student rode on
the trunk of another students car on school property. Knight made legitimate and conscious
decisions that put him at risk.
Final Decision
The court will find the School District liable for Knights injuries. According to D.C. v.
St. Landry Parish School Board (2001), a school is liable for injuries sustained by a student when
not on school grounds if improper procedure was followed to discharge said student. According

PORTFOLIO #3
4

: TORT AND LIABILITY

to the case of Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc. (2000), the school will be held liable for
injuries sustained during school hours, even if not on school property, because the school has a
duty to provide adequate supervision. As with these cases, Knights parents had no reason to
believe their child was not being supervised by the school during school hours because the
school failed to properly notify them, and the school should be held liable for injuries sustained
by the student.

PORTFOLIO #3
5

: TORT AND LIABILITY

REFERENCES
Cave v. Burt (2004) Retrieved from Underwood, J., & Webb, D. L.
(2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications (p. 107). Columbus, OH:
Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board (2001), Retrieved from Underwood, J., & Webb, D. L.
(2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications (pp. 105-106). Columbus,
OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District No. 253 (2001), Retrieved from Underwood, J., &
Webb, D. L. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications (p. 101).
Columbus, OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.

Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc. (2000), Retrieved from Underwood, J., & Webb, D. L.
(2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications (pp. 101-102). Columbus,
OH: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.