Running Head: TORT AND LIABILITY 1

Tort and Liability

Angelica Viggiano

College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Safety of children is undeniably of the utmost importance to parents. When parents send

their child to school, they want to trust in the school that they will keep the child safe. In the case

of Ray Knight, his parents will no longer believe that his former school can keep children safe.

After only three unexcused absences, Ray was suspended from school for three days. Instead of

notifying Ray’s parents by phone or mail, like they are required to from the school district, the

school sent a letter with Ray to give to his parents to notify them of his suspension. Like many

middle school students would do, Ray threw away the letter so his parents would not know he

got suspended. On his first day of suspension, Ray went to a friend’s house where he was fatally

shot. In the following discussion we will go over whether Ray’s parents have the premises to

press charges against the school for liability.

When students leave school unsupervised and without permission, it is the school’s duty

to at least notify the parents so they can make sure the child is safe. In Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids

Community School District (2013), a school was found “​Negligent in failing to adequately

supervise the special education student and awarded damages” to the family. After the student

left school, the students teacher noticed her absence and notified everyone except for the parent.

If the parent had been notified of the students unexcused departure of school, they could have

found and protected her before being sexually assaulted. Likewise in Ray’s case, if the parents

had been sufficiently notified of his suspension, they would have been able to take measures

ensuring his safety.

The next case I found relevant is Carey v. Piphus (1978). Here, the student Piphus was

suspended for 20 days due to illegal drugs on campus. The most important difference between

Piphus’s case and Ray’s is that when the school failed to reach his parents, they let him stay at
Running Head: TORT AND LIABILITY 3

school for in-school-suspension until his parents could be reached and notified. This is a

reassuring act of schools maintaining student safety, and perhaps if Ray’s school had done this,

he would still be alive.

While it is true that schools absolutely have a duty to ensure students safety while in their

care on school grounds, is it still up to the schools to ensure the students safety while not on

school grounds? In Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District, they argued the very same

thing. Though the circumstances are slightly different, the premise is still the same- whether or

not schools are liable for damages obtained off of school property. In Hoyem v. Manhattan, the

student was able to sneak off of campus, without knowledge of teachers or administrators, and

was subsequently hit by a motorist. Though the administrators were negligent in supervising the

student, they are not accountable for the injuries he incurred while off campus. They quoted

Education code section 44808 which states, "No school district... shall be responsible or in any

way liable for the conduct or safety of any pupil of the public schools at any time when such

pupil is not on school property, unless such district, ... has undertaken to provide transportation

for such pupil to and from the school premises, has undertaken a school-sponsored activity off

the premises of such school, has otherwise specifically assumed such responsibility or liability or

has failed to exercise reasonable care under the circumstances...." (Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach

City Sch. Dist., 2013). In Ray’s case, although his parents should have known that he had been

suspended, it is not the school’s responsibility to ensure his safety once he is no longer on school

grounds.

A similar case reinforces this assertion. In Kerwin v. County of San Mateo, the school

contacted a child’s home so someone could pick up the sick child from school. The only person
Running Head: TORT AND LIABILITY 4

home was the child’s 11 year old brother, who was also home sick. The 11 year old still went to

the younger child’s school to pick him up on his bicycle made for one person. On the way home,

the bicycle tipped over resulting in injuries to the children. While the school absolutely should

have known better than to release a child to another minor without a secure means of traveling

home, “A school district is not legally responsible for accidents en route once pupils have been

released from school, or before they arrive at school” (Kerwin v. County of San Mateo, 1959).

After reviewing these cases and thinking about what would be most relevant in court, I

determined that Ray’s parents would not have very stable grounds to press charges against the

school for Ray’s death. While parent notification is something that should be put to a higher

importance when it regards their children, the bottom line is that the school is not responsible for

Ray’s safety when he is not on school grounds or under the school’s care.
Running Head: TORT AND LIABILITY 5

References

Carey v. Piphus, 435 US 247 (Supreme Court 1978)

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., 585 P. 2d 851 (California Supreme Court 1978)

Kerwin v. County of San Mateo, 176 Cal. App. 2d 304 (California Court of Appeals 1959)

Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School, 832 NW 2d 689 (Iowa Supreme Court 2013)