Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY 1

Tort and Liability

Arleesia Herrera

College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Tort and Liability

Due to several unexcused absences from school Ray Knight, a middle school student,

was given a three-day suspension. School District policy dictates that the parents be noticed of

any school suspension by both telephone and written notice in the mail. However, the school sent

a note with Mr. Knight to give to his parents. Mr. Knight threw away the notice of suspension

and his parents were not informed of the suspension by any other means, even though it is so

stated in the school policy. Mr. Knight was accidentally shot on the first day of his suspension

while visiting a friend’s house. Because Knight’s parents were not properly notified by the

school of their son’s suspension, they felt justified in filing a lawsuit against the school for

liability.

Tort

Schools act in loco parentis and are expected to take reasonable responsibility for the

children entrusted to them. The parents of Ray Knight would find evidence to support their case

in the case Munn III v. The Hotchkiss School. Munn was a student at the private boarding school

Hotchkiss. In the summer of 2007, after just finishing her freshmen year, Munn went on an

educational trip to China. She and other classmate went on a hike in the heavily forested area of

Mount Panshan. During this hike she was bit by a tick and contracted encephalitis, a viral

infectious disease that attacks the central nervous system which left her with permanent brain

damage. Prior to the trip, students were not given adequate information or warning concerning

insect-borne illnesses, even though the school had previously looked up the information from the

CDC (Munn III v The Hotchkiss School, 2017). The court found that “a school having custody

of minor children has an obligation to use reasonable care to protect those children from

foreseeable harms” (Munn III v The Hotchkiss School, 2017) and in this case the school failed to
TORT AND LIABILITY 3

do so. What this mean for the parents of Ray Knight is that the school has a duty to its’ students.

Like the parent of Ms. Munn, the parents of Mr. Knight were not told an important piece of

information and as a direct result lead to the harm of their child.

In a second case, very similar to Ray Knights’, a student is sexually assaulted after being

sent home for a dress code violation without her fathers’ knowledge. In the case D.C. v. St.

Landry Parish School Board, a junior high school girl is sent home to change clothes because

what she had one was in violation of the dress code. Instead, the student called home and spoke

with her brother. The school allowed her to sign herself out to go home to get new clothes. On

the way home she was sexually assaulted only eight blocks from the school (D.C. v. St. Landry

Parish School Board, 2001). The courts found that the “actions of the school board resulted in a

breach of the duty of reasonable supervision” (D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board, 2001). In

correlation with the case for Mr. Knight, the schools did not follow their own policy to provide

“reasonable supervision” and students suffered as a result.

Liability

The Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act of 2001, limits liability of educators and

staff as long as they are taking “reasonable actions to maintain order, discipline and an

appropriate educational environment.”, in applicable states (2001). The suspension of Ray

Knight was done to maintain discipline at the school. In the case of Dydell v. Taylor, the liability

of schools is examined during an assault that took place on school grounds.

James Whitehead, a student from Westport Charter School in Kansas City, was expelled

from attempting to bring a knife onto school grounds. Following the expulsion, Whitehead was

ordered to seek psychiatric treatment. After being discharged, Mr. Whitehead’s mother enrolled

him in the Kansas City School district. Bernard Taylor, the superintendent of the Kansas City
TORT AND LIABILITY 4

School district, worked with Mr. White heads mother to get him enrolled in the Special

Education Program. As a part of his transfer to the Kansas City School District, she needed to

provide medical records which included those from the psychiatric hospital (Dydell v. Dr.

Bernard Taylor, 2011). Superintendent Taylor was aware of both his stay at a psychiatric hospital

and his arrest for bringing a knife to school at the time of approving is enrollment. After being in

the school for approximately a year, Mr. Whitehead made an unprovoked attack or Mr.Dydell in

the school cafeteria. He approached him from behind and sliced his throat with a box cutter. Mr.

Dydell survived the attack. Mr Dydell, later brought suit to the school district arguing they were

negligent in supervising Mr. Whitehead and his failure to inform the school staff of Mr.

Whiteheads’ criminal and psychiatric history directly caused the attack (Dydell v. Dr. Bernard

Taylor, 2011). In this case the court found that it was not the sole responsibility of the

superintendent to notify anyone of Mr. Whiteheads’ history. The courts also concluded that at the

time of the initial incident at Westport Charter, Mr. Whitehead was not a student of the Kansas

City School Board. What this means for the Knight family is responsibility only belongs to the

school district when a student is apart of the school. Having being suspended, Mr. Knight is not a

part of the school nor is he a responsibility at that time.

A second case that looks at the responsibility of school to their students is Jackson V

Colvin. On the way home from an after-school activity Santana Brown was struck by a car. Jack

Colvin, the driver of the car, was dismissed from the lawsuit, but the school board was still

required to face trial. During the testimony of the trial it was discovered that Ms. Brown had

called her grandmother, whom was her guardian at the time, to get a ride home from drill team

practice, a practice she had three times a week. Her grandmother, Loretta Brown, told her to “be

careful and walk home” (Jackson v. Colvin, 1998). According to Lorretta Brown’s testimony,
TORT AND LIABILITY 5

she was unaware that the crossing guards had already left for the at 3:30 pm, even though the

practice had ended at 3:40pm. Usually Ms. Brown walks home with a group of other students

but, they had already left school by this time. In court, the question was raised “Does the school

board oe a duty to insure the safety of a chile who walks home?” (Jackson v. Colvin, 1998).

Ultimately the court found that is does not and that it is the “responsibility of the parents to see

that their children arrive home safely.” (Jackson v. Colvin, 1998). For the Knight’s case this

means the responsibility of a child’s safety is that of the parents when the child not in school or

participating in school, despite what the parent may or may not know.

Ruling

The parents of Ray Knight have a pretty strong case. Mostly due to the fact that the

school broke its own policies and rules. In cases cited previously, the school has a duty to inform

the parents of their child’s whereabout when leaving school grounds and give parents as much

information as possible to make informed decisions. In both these things the school failed Mr.

Knight. Not only did they not properly inform the parents of Mr. Knights expulsion, they

depended on the child to inform his parents that he was in trouble to begin with. This is

completely irresponsible of the school. While the school was not responsible for the shooting

that occurred, it was responsible for informing Ray Knight’s parents of his dismissal from school

grounds so that they could make reasonable accommodations. Failure to do so proved to be both

negligent and harmful. The injury suffered by Ray Knight was a direct result of the schools’

failure to act in accordance with its policies and its duties to the students and their parents.
 TORT AND LIABILITY 6

References

Craig DYDELL, Appellant, v. Dr. Bernard TAYLOR, Respondent (February 8, 2011).

D.C. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit.

March 07, 2001).

Marvin JACKSON, individually, and on Behalf of his minor niece, Santana Brown, Plaintiffs-

Appellants, v. Jack COLVIN, Allstate Insurance Company, Calcasieu Parish School Board,

Defendants-Appellees. (Court of Appeal of Louisiana, Third Circuit. December 23, 1998).

Orson D. MUNN III, et. al. v. The HOTCHKISS SCHOOL (August 11, 2017).

Paul D. Coverdell Teacher Protection Act, Elementary and Secondary Education Act-107-110

(2001).