Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Edu 210 Artifact 3 Tort and Liability
Edu 210 Artifact 3 Tort and Liability
Edu 210 Artifact 3 Tort and Liability
Artifact #3
Tort and Liability
Angel Gutierrez
College of Southern Nevada
5th of March 2015
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY
A middle school student named Ray Knight was placed on suspension for three
days due to failure to show up school. Once the suspension takes effect the school district
follows the procedure of sending a telephone notification and prompting a written notice
to the parents so that they are aware of the suspension taking place. The school instead
gave the notice to the student Ray Knight in assumption that he would then give it to his
parents so that they are aware of his three day suspension. Instead, Ray threw out the
notice and decided to visit a friends house on his first day of suspension. Unfortunately
for Ray Knight he was shot accidently while visiting his friends house. The question to
be answered here is if Rays parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges
In favor of Ray Knight, his parents can argue that the school failed to
follow procedures of required telephone notification along with notice by mail that would
have kept his parents aware of the suspension and ultimately Ray Knight would not have
found himself accidently shot. Ray Knights parents could argue that this was an act of
negligence due to the failure to exercise proper care by not following proper procedures
in notifying the parents. His parents can say that due to the failure to follow proper
procedures this resulted in the death of Ray Knight. As noted on page 100 of Nevada
School Law for Teachers, Negligence occurs only when someone acts unreasonable and
as a result the other is injured. (2006). Rays parents can also argue that due to the
expected procedures not being followed by the teacher this resulted in negligence because
the teacher did not care enough to ensure that the parents were aware of the suspension.
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY
The following will be used as an argument against Ray Knight. The teacher may
argue against Ray Knights parents due to the fact that she was not negligent because she
did provide notice about the suspension. She may state that due to Ray Knight throwing
out his notice that was to be given to his parents he contributed to the negligence under
negligent and caused any part of his or her own damages, there is no recovery.
(Underwood & Webb, 2006). If the court agrees that due to Ray Knight tossing out his
suspension notice and Ray making the decision to walk to his friends house he would
then be held accountable and the teacher would not have to take responsibility for his
death.
One last case scenario that can be argued would be that both parties are at fault
due to comparative negligence. It can be argued that the teacher and Ray Knight both
contributed to the negligence. Due to the teacher not taking the proper steps in sending
out a telephone call she would have partial fault for the negligence which resulted in the
death of Ray Knight. Ray Knight would then have partial fault for tossing out the notice
of suspension. Both parties would then be guilty of negligence to a certain degree. In this
case the parents of Ray Knight would only win a portion of damage award. Comparative
negligence apportions the damage award among the negligent parties depending on the
relative degree of fault or their contributions to the injuries. (Underwood & Webb,
2006).
My decision is against both parties. I believe that both parties failed to follow
proper procedures which ultimately resulted in the negligence of Ray Knight. If the
ARTIFACT #3 TORT AND LIABILITY
teacher would have sent out the required telephone call she would have followed all
proper procedures. The teacher is at fault of failure of duty. A duty can arise from an
& Webb, 2006). It was the teachers responsibility to telephone the parents so that they
could be aware of the suspension, sending just a notice with Ray Knight means that she
did not follow proper procedures expected. Ray Knight is also partially at fault due to the
fact that he knew he was supposed to give the notice to his parents about the suspension
but decided to rip it up instead. Failure to give the notice to his parents resulted in them
not knowing about the suspension therefore Ray leaving his house while on suspension
References
Underwood, J. & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle