Running Head: ARTIFACT #5

Christina Flatley
Artifact #5
Nevada School Law 210
Professor Herington
May 6, 2016

ARTIFACT #5

Abstract
This artifact will explore the rights of students regarding tort and liability. We will see the
plaintiffs side regarding Ray Knight and his parents. While the defendants side is the school
district that has Ray was administered in. Each side will provide an argument with cases and
amendments. Finally, there will be a verdict that will side with either the plaintiff or the
defendant for the conclusion.
Keywords: tort, liability, plaintiff, defendant, verdict, conclusion

ARTIFACT #5

A middle school student by the name of Ray Knight has been sent home with a note to
prove his suspension due to his unexcused absences. The school district did not send further
notice of his suspension by calling his parents to let them know about their son. Ray decided that
he might get away with this simply by throwing his written suspension notice in the trash. Rays
parents did not know of this until much later. As Ray decides to walk to a friends house on his
first day of suspension, he got into a crossfire and was accidentally shot in the process.
For the plaintiffs side, this paper will look at the cases that will contribute to their
argument. The first case cited will be the 1999 case of Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School
District. Certain parts of comparative negligence and supervision will also be supplemented to
the plaintiffs side. For the defendants side, certain portions of contributory negligence will be
mentioned. Finally, the defendant will review the case of Goss v. Lopez to aid their argument.
When it comes to issues regarding the safety of students under the school districts line of
vision, it is mainly a grey area. However, one thing is clear in that schools are partially
responsible for supervision of their students. Knights parents were not notified of their childs
suspension, therefore they had a right, to be informed about the earliest time supervision will be
provided before school so that students will not arrive before school personnel
(Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy & Eckes, 2014). Furthermore the school had breached their line
of supervision where both,the district had an express or implied duty to provide supervision on
and off school grounds both before and after school hours (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes,
2014). Including, the child was injured due to a breach of that duty (Cambron-McCabe,
McCarthy, Eckes, 2014).

ARTIFACT #5

It was also foreseeable of the fact that Knights school district did not provide the extra
notification needed about his suspension. Therefore, the school district is to blame to some
degree. According to certain parts of comparative negligence, the plaintiff and/or one or more
defendants bear responsibility in proportion to fault (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes,
2014). In the 1999 case of Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District, a young boy
was,hit by a car when he ran into the street trying to flee another student after he safely exited a
school bus on his way home (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). Though the school,
was not responsible for escorting the child home, school officials were aware of the conduct of
the students at the bus stop, a nearby bus street with fast moving traffic, and the availability of an
alternative and safer bus stop (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014). This further proves
that Knights school district should have been more aware by sending further notification to his
parents regarding his suspension.
As for the defendants side, there will be mentions of certain parts of contributory
negligence. According to Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy and Eckes (2014), plaintiffs are denied
recovery if their actions are shown to have been substantially responsible for the injury; it makes
no difference that the defendant was negligent and also partially at fault. Ray Knight was trying
to visit his friends house while on his first day of suspension. It seems that when he was walking
there he had actually been contributing to his severe injuries in the first place. Furthermore it is
stated that,Children between the ages of seven and fourteen are considered incapable of
negligence, but this presumption can be rebutted (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014).
It all depends on how his age, maturity, intelligence, and experience come into play.

ARTIFACT #5

A case that the school district could further cite for their argument is the 1975 case of
Goss v. Lopez. What this case is about regards to how,nine students bought a constitutional
claim in federal court on the grounds that they have been suspended for 10 days without a
hearing (Skelton, 2016). For the Courts final ruling they claimed that students have a property
right to an education protected by the Fourteenth Amendment. The Court also,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-McCabe, McCarthy, Eckes, 2014).
Knights school district did provide a written notice to his parents, however it was carelessly
thrown away by the suspended student himself. If Ray Knight hadnt thrown away that written
notice, his parents would have easily found out about his suspension and unexcused absences.
Then Ray could have had a hearing regarding his constitutional rights for his education.
As for the final verdict it will be in favor of the plaintiffs Ray Knight and his parents. The
school district should have provided further notice about Rays suspension due to his absences.
Instead, they chose to only give a written notice to the suspended student and not give further
evidence by calling his parents about the suspension. The school did not do their duty and
supervise his behavior after receiving this notice. So it should be fair that Knights parents
should receive financial compensation to make up for the injuries that their son has sustained
from the school districts negligence.

ARTIFACT #5

References
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Legal Rights of
Teachers and Students (3rd ed.). Boston: Pearson Education.
Skelton, C. (2016, Spring). Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S. 565 (1975). Retrieved May 05, 2016,
from https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/565/#annotation