Tort and Liability 1

Tort and Liability: Responsibilities and Consequences

EDU 210: Artifact 3

Xavier C. Perry

College of Southern Nevada

Tort and Liability 2

Abstract

This paper examines four published court cases that cover the rights and

responsibilities of the school system including, but not limited to the

boundaries of those responsibilities. It carefully outlines the parameters in

which a teacher is accountable and the expectation of safety and care a

parent should have for the educational institution to provide for their child.

The text you will view will additionally investigate the constitutionality of

the law as it provides for the safety of students while also protecting the

rights of the teachers and educational systems. It is my hope that this paper

and the information provided within will implore teachers and parents to

be aware of their rights, more involved in the day to day happenings of the

children.
Tort and Liability 3

Tort and Liability: Responsibility and Consequences

Ray Knight, was a middle school aged boy whom because of unexcused

absences was suspended. The procedures and policies of the school district

which he resided required that they immediately contact the parents via

telephone and additionally mail a letter to the child’s residence. The school

didn’t contact the parents by phone, nor did they mail a letter, but instead

sent a note home with the child to give to his parents. The child decided to

throw the note away rather than giving the note to his parents. All of this

left Ray’s parents unaware of his suspension. On the first day of Ray’s

suspension, he went to a friend’s where he was, accidently, but

unfortunately shot.

In the court case Eisel v Board of Education of Montgomery County

(1991), a young thirteen year old girl, Nicole Eisel, had become involved

in Satanism causing her to become infatuated with death and killing

herself. After conveying her feeling to many friends, they decided to

report the things that had been said to them to a school counselor. Nicole

was later questioned by two counselors by regarding the girl’s contentions

and Nicole denied them. The counselors sent Nicole on her way, never
Tort and Liability 4

notifying the parents of the situation. The following week, a student at an

adjacent school whom Nicole had apparently orchestrated a suicide pact

with, shot and killed Nicole and then that student also committed suicide.

Shortly after, Nicole’s father, Stephen Eisel, filed a lawsuit against the

Board of Education of Montgomery County citing Negligence. The court

found in this case that the two school counselors were in fact negligent.

The counselors were found negligent because they didn’t communicate to

the parents the suicidal statements conveyed to them by other students by

their daughter, Nicole. As, counselors, they have a duty to provide safe

and this situation the courts deemed that they had a, “duty to use

reasonable means to prevent suicide when they are on notice” of a

student’s suicide intent (Underwood/Webb Pages 108-109). This case

proves congruent with the case of Ray Knight being that the middle school

which he attended had an obligation to follow a certain procedure and

because they neglected to follow the appropriate policies and procedures a

child was shot, just as because the two counselors in the case of Eisel v

Board of Education of Montgomery County neglected there duties, a child

died.

Additionally case sustaining the importance of school officials

maintaining necessary communication and “ reasonable care” is evident in

the case of Sain v Cedar Rapids Community School

Tort and Liability 5

District (2001). This case involved a young man, Bruce Sain, whom

attended Cedar Rapids his junior and senior years of high school. Sain had

aspirations of attending a reputable college on a basketball scholarship. He

had already been scouted by numerous schools and was ready to go. As

part of his preparation, Sain met with his counselor, Larry Bowen, to

ensure that he was enrolled in the classes required of him by the NCAA,

(National Athletic Collegiate Association). After sitting down with his

counselor, it was determined that, Sain needed to take three courses in the

category of English. At some point during the course study, Sain went to

Bowen and explained to him that he wasn’t comfortable in his current

English course. Bowen suggested another class that would be sufficient

for the NCAA guidelines. Later, Sain found out that the suggested course

was in fact not acceptable and after graduation, Sain was notified by the

NCAA that he was one third short in credits to participate in Division 1

basketball. Unfortunately, this also caused him to lose his scholarship. The

judge in this case, similarly in both the Eisel v Board of Education of

Montgomery County and the case of middle school student, Ray Knight,

deemed the counselor, Larry Bowen, to be negligent. The judge found that

the counselor did in fact have a duty to exercise reasonable care being that

he had the knowledge and an obligation to provide the student with

accurate information and guidance. Both cases, Eisel v Board of Education

of Monterey County and Sain v Cedar Rapids Community School District

define the same premise as the case of young Ray Knight. A young boy,
Tort and Liability 6

who was shot on the first day, of the start of a three day suspension that his

parents were unaware of because the school neglected their duties and

failed to follow proper procedure and inform the parents of the child’s

suspension. Just as in the case cited regarding the two counselors whom

also neglected their duties and proper procedures leading to the death of

young Nicole Eisel. Additionally, we see in the case of Bruce Sain, an

aspiring student an athlete whom has worked very hard difficult during

high school career. And although he made continued attempts to secure his

future, it collapsed because of a counselor whom neglected their duties in

providing proper information.

There have also been similar cases wherein a judge found that the school

employee and or school district was not responsible. This was the finding

in the case of Collette v Tolleson Unified School District (2002) wherein a

student attending Westview High School in Arizona, Zachary Thomason,

caused a multiple car accident that injured several motorists while driving

back to school after going off during lunch. At the time Thomason, left

campus he was in violation of school policy. The policy provided that he

both sign out and have prior parental permission in order to be allowed

that privilege. As a result, the motorists filed lawsuits against both

Thomason and the school district claiming that the school district had a

duty to protect the public from the negligent driving of students. The

courts in this case determined the school district to not be liable. The

courts provided that the school district had no obligation to protect a third
Tort and Liability 7

party, the injured motorists. This situation mirrors the Ray Knight case in

that policy wasn’t followed in either case. Additionally, both students

made decisions that effected the outcomes. One, student decided to not

provide his parent with a note notifying them of suspension. The other

student decided to either not sign out or get a note from their parent. In

both situations school policy and procedure wasn’t followed, but the

outcomes of the cases were drastically different.

The final case I will present, Scott v Savers Property and Casualty

Insurance Company was tried in the Wisconsin Supreme Court wherein

they found a school district to not be liable. Ryan Scott was a high school

senior attending Steven Point Area Senior High School wherein he aspired

to meet the NCAA (National Collegiate Athletic Association) educational

requirements and obtain a scholarship to play hockey for the University of

Alaska (2003). It was the contention of both Ryan and his parents that his

counselor, Johnson, agreed to help in guiding him in taking the needed

courses. After graduation and playing junior hockey in Iowa, Ryan was

offered a scholarship to the University of Alaska pending his transcript

review to ensure his course eligibility through the NCAA. Unfortunately,

Ryan later received a letter stating that one of the courses he took as an

English credit wasn’t approved and he was no longer eligible for the

scholarship. Ryan Scott and his parents sued on the grounds of breach of

contract, promissory estoppel and negligence. It was found that there were

no grounds for any of the above. They deemed there to have been no
Tort and Liability 8

promises made, no negligence and no contract that allowed the Scott’s to

receive financial recourse. Very similarly to all of the cases, this student

and his parents felt the counselor was in fact responsible. By all accounts

he is a counselor who helps students choose classes and to some extent

orchestrate their future. In this case the judge believed that there was no

malicious intent. Just as in the case of Ray Knight, the school’s intent was

not for him to be shot.

Tort and Liability 9

Conclusion

It is my conclusion that the parents of middle school student Ray Knight,

have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against school

officials. In this specific situation there was in fact a violation of duty that

led to harm. The school had an obligation to follow proper policy and

procedure. When they didn’t send a letter regarding Knights suspension by

mail or make a phone call to the parents, they failed to follow policy and

additionally the situation meets all four elements of negligence: duty,

breach, causation and injury. Similarly, in the case of Nicole Eisel, a

young girl whose life could have been spared had a counselor made a

phone call to her parents. Members of the educational institutions must be

held accountable for ensuring the safety of the students. Without question,

it’s my belief that the judge would in fact find in favor of the parents of

Ray Knight.
Tort and Liability 10

References

Collette v Tolleson Unified School District. Court of Appeals of

Arizona. Retrieved from

http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814028

.cw/index.html

Underwood, Julie & Webb, L. Dean. (2005). Negligence and

Defamation in the School Setting. Stollenwork, Debra A. &

Rogers, Elisa, School Law For Teachers Concepts and

Applications (pp.114). New Jersey: Pearson

Underwood, Julie & Webb, L. Dean. (2005). Negligence and

Defamation in the School Setting. Stollenwork, Debra A. &

Rogers, Elisa, School Law For Teachers Concepts and

Applications (pp.108-109). New Jersey: Pearson

More Law Lexapedia. (2001). Sain v Cedar Rapids Community

School District.

http://www.morelaw.com/verdicts/case.asp?s=IA&d=13535http://wps.pren

hall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814028.cw/index.html

Tort and Liability 11

Tort and Liability 11

Supreme Court of Wisconsin. (2003). Scott v Savers Property and

Casualty Insurance Company.

https://www.wicourts.gov/html/sc/01/01-2953.htm

Leagle Inc. (2015) Eisel v Board of Education of Montgomery

County.

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324Md376_1672/EISEL%20v.%

20BOARD%20OF%20EDUCATION