Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
Evelyn Morales-Ramirez
Abstract
This paper will address a case where a student experiences an accident as a result of possible
negligence from the schools part. Both sides of the case will be discussed and in the end a
decision must be made determining whether the school acted appropriately or whether the
Being a teacher, or even being part of the schools’ staff, comes with several
responsibilities. While the children are in school, they are under the care of the school and
teachers. Sometimes there are cases where even without being on school grounds, students are
still the responsibility of the teachers and school (i.e. field trips, volunteer services, etc.).
Although there are cases where the care of students is still under the responsibility of the school,
there are cases where it is uncertain whether the school could be held responsible for a student
not on school grounds and under certain circumstances. In Ray Knights’ case, he was a middle
school boy who got suspended due to unexcused absences. School district procedures required
telephone notification and a written notice sent by mail to his parents, but the school only
complied with sending a notice home with the student who then chose to throw it away.
Therefore, Ray’s parents were unaware of his suspension. During the first day of his suspension,
Ray visited a friend’s house and while he was there he was accidentally shot.
One case that would support the plaintiff, Ray Knight, and find the school liable for his
accident is Goss v. Lopez. In this case public high school students were suspended for ten days
without being given hearings either before or after their suspension. Ohio law did not require the
school to give the students a hearing, but the principal’s actions were questioned and challenged.
It was believed that the students’ rights had been violated due to the fact that they were not given
a hearing. The Court found that their Due Process rights granted by the Fourteenth Amendment
had been violated and that the students’ should at minimum be given a notice before suspension
and offered some type of hearing either before or after the suspension (Oyez). In Ray Knight’s
case it is not mentioned that he was given a hearing before his suspension or a notice that was
The Fourteenth Amendment could also be used to defend Ray Knight, since it grants him
procedural rights. There are certain procedural requirements that must be completed before a
student can be suspended. In the textbook Legal Rights of Teachers and Students by Cambron-
McCabe, McCarthy and Eckes it states, “The Court held that minimum due process must be
provided before a student is suspended for even a brief period of time (p. 176).” There was no
type of due process that was given to Ray Knight. It is uncertain how many days he was
suspended for, but it is known that the school district procedures required the school to notify the
parents through a phone call and a prompt written notice by mail. The failed to do either one and
merely sent a notice with the student who chose to throw it away, leaving his parents unaware of
his suspension. Ray Knight was not given his due process rights granted to him through the
Fourteenth amendment which can be claimed to have a link with the accident.
In order for the school to be held liable for Ray’s accident and guilty of negligence four
elements must be proven: duty, breach of duty, causation and injury. In Ray’s case those four
elements could be proven. The school had a duty to protect the plaintiff and grant proper
supervision to the pupil. It was not possible for the student to have proper supervision by his
parents at home if it was unknown to them that their child had be suspended. To their knowledge
their child was in school, where he was being properly supervised, which in all case was not
what was happening. The injury that Ray Knight suffered was due to a breach of duty from the
schools’ part. There could be a link between the negligent act, which was the school failing to
properly inform Ray’s parents of his suspension, and the harm caused to him. When it comes to
negligence there are two types that could be claimed: contributory and comparative.
Contributory negligence means that the student is responsible for the injury and comparative
negligence means that the student and educator/school are both responsible for the injury. In this
VIEWING TORT LIABILITY 5
case it could be claimed to be comparative negligence, but with the school bearing most of the
responsibility. The students’ duty was to give the notice to his parents and even after he failed to
do so, he was the one that went to his friend’s house instead of staying home, in which case the
accident could have been prevented. The school still carries majority fault and bears most of the
responsibility due to the fact that their negligence to send a proper notification to his parents.
Moving over to the defendants’ side, Collete v Tolleson Unified School District is a case
that would support the defendants’ side and would not find the school liable for Ray’s accident.
In this case, five students from Westview High School, including Zachary Thomason, who was
the driver, left school campus during the schools’ lunch hour in Thomason’s car to go to the
mall. The school had a modified closed-campus policy which allowed sophomores, juniors, and
seniors who had a GPA of 3.0 or higher leave school campus during their lunch hour. Along with
having a GPA of 3.0, they also had to have their parents’ permission to leave the campus and
those who had both were given a card to symbolize that they were among the students who were
allowed to leave the campus. The students with the cards had to present them upon leaving and
re-entering campus. Thomason and two of the other students that were in the car did not have
cards. When Thomason was leaving he was encountered by a security at the campus entrance
and he told the security that he did not have a card. The security told him that he was not allowed
to leave school campus and Thomason claimed that he needed some books that were in his car,
which was parked off campus. The security guard did not try to stoop him after that, he just told
Thomason to hurry back. Thomason then picked up the other four students that went with him at
an unguarded gate. On their way back to school from the mall while Thomason was trying to
switch lanes he lost control of the vehicle and crashed into another car (Collette v. Tolleson
Unified School District NO 214, 2016). . The court found that the school was not responsible for
VIEWING TORT LIABILITY 6
the accident that occurred while the students were off campus. The accident could not be directly
linked to the fact that the students left school campus unauthorized; it was unforeseeable
accident. This case can be used in the defendants’ defense because similar to this case, Ray
Knight’s accident was not on school grounds and the accident could not be directly linked to
Ray’s suspension.
Another case that would support the school and find them not liable for Ray’s accident is
Maldonado v. Tuckahoe Union Free School District. In this case Bridgette Maldonado, who was
the injured plaintiff, was attacked in her own house by Brian Morris whom Maldonado had had
previous encounters with at their school, Tuckahoe High School. About one month before the
incident at Maldonado’s house the defendant’s became aware that Morris had allegedly made
death threats to Maldonado and her brother. Due to that, the school’s principal and both of the
students’ parents met to discuss the matter. As a result of the meeting, Morris was suspended and
was still suspended during the incident at Maldonado’s house. According to the website, Findlaw
for Legal Professionals, “…the defendants’ alleged negligence in this case-i.e., the failure to
protect the injured plaintiff from the criminal act of a third party-involves a governmental
function for which the defendants may not be held liable in the absence of a special duty.” The
school district could not be held liable for Maldonado’s attack at her home being that it was not
on school campus. The school took the disciplinary actions necessary, which was suspending
Morris from school. The school could not do more than that, such as protect the plaintiff at her
own home. The incident was not caused by a breach of duty or negligence. It was also not a
normal or foreseeable circumstance. With this case similarities are also seen with Knight’s case.
Again, the accident was an unforeseeable action; it could not be predicted that Ray would get
shot at his friend’s house under normal circumstances. In the textbook Legal Rights of Teachers
VIEWING TORT LIABILITY 7
and Students by Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy and Eckes it states, “As a general rule, school
districts are not expected to protect truant and non-attending students or students who are injured
in their homes (p. 25).” That statement applies to both Maldonado’s case and Knight’s case, the
In conclusion, from viewing the several court cases and both sides of the case I would say
that the Court would side with Ray Knight and hold the school liable of his injury. Due to school
officials not following the proper school district procedures it lead to a breach of duty and to a
lack of supervision. If Ray’s parents had been aware of his suspension the accident may have
been prevented. In his case the school was negligent in performing the proper school procedures
which resulted in the improper supervision of Knight, who is a minor, and lead to an injury.
VIEWING TORT LIABILITY 8
References
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E., (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers
FindLaw. (2016). Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No 214. FindLaw for Legal
appeals/1291266.html.
FindLaw. (2016). Maldonado v. Tuckahoe Union Free School District. FindLaw for Legal
court/1171158.html.