Artifact #5 Tort and Liability 1

Artifact #5

Tort and Liability

Rayana Wilder

Professor Herrington

EDU 210-1005

12 April 2019
Artifact #5 Tort and Liability 1

A middle school student, named Ray Knight, had unexcused absences and was

given a three day suspension. He was only handed a notice, and he threw that away. On the way

to a friend’s house Ray was shot accidently, and this was only first day of his suspension. The

school is suppose call, and write a notice through the mail to let the parents know about any

suspensions. Because the school did not follow the procedures, the parents did not know of the

student’s suspension.

The school could argue that the student was given a notice that was supposed to go to the

parents, and blame Ray for failing to give them that notice. The student should have went

straight home, and let the parents know what happened at school. There is nothing the school can

do off campus. It is not their responsibilities to keep track of where students are outside of

school. According to the Pistolese v. William Foyd Union Free District case, a child was

physically assaulted while walking home. He was walking home with friends, outside of school,

and chose not to take bus when this incident took place. Judgement was placed, and the

complaint from the parents were pushed aside. This was outside of the school’s control; the

parents were then back in charge. The school could use this case to help say that Ray was no

longer under there supervision, and that their responsibilities over the student stops once away

from them.

In the Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District case a student, named,

Andrew, was chased by another student who had previously threatened to beat him up. This

occurrence took place outside of school, after the students were getting off at the bus stop,

heading home. Andrew ran out into the street fearing he was going to be beaten up. In doing so

he got hot by car, and that cause him to have major and life term spinal, and brain injuries. The

verdict was decided that the damages were partially the student’s fault, partially the parents, and
Artifact #5 Tort and Liability 1

partially the schools. The parent’s complaints were dismissed in a way. Both the parents and the

school could use this case to prove their argument, but more for the school’s side. The school

could use this case to help argue that they do not oversee the student’s actions and choices

outside of the borders of their supervision, like with the other case.

The parents could say that the school notify them like they were required to according to

the school districts procedures. If the school would have followed the rules laid out for them the

parents would of knew that the student would be coming home, and known of his whereabouts.

The parents could have done something if they knew that Ray was not to be in school for three

days. They were probably thinking that their child was still in school for the day and was

expecting him home later. With the Goss v Lopez case, two high schools and a middle school

gave nine students 10-day suspensions. There was no hearing of any kind before putting the

suspensions in place. According to the federal court this violated the rights of the students under

the fourteenth amendment and a removal of the suspensions off the student’s records was

ordered. This case could help Ray’s parents because they didn’t even get a notice about the

suspension which is not only did it put Ray in danger, but it is also on his record. Ray’s parents

could claim that it was unconstitutional for the school do send him away from his education. He

had absences, to the parents they might think that it is not right to keep a student from learning

longer.

I believe that the court will side with school because it was not within school grounds.

The cases, I think, would really support their side of the story. It is evident, however, that they

didn’t they properly inform the parents of what was going on, but the note, that Ray threw away

is a notice. Even though it was only a letter sent with the student, it was still a notice. They could
Artifact #5 Tort and Liability 1

argue that it was not their responsibility to make the student hand the notice to the parents. It is

terrible that student was harmed, but it was in the school’s control since he was at a friend’s

house.

In conclusion, the school should have followed procedures in suspending a student. They

should have had a hearing and notified the parents properly. It would have kept them from risk of

getting in trouble, and it would have helped the situation of Ray getting put in danger. The blame

would not have fallen so much on them, and the parents would have been more in wrong. To me

they all had some part in what happened.

 Artifact #5 Tort and Liability 1

Works Cited Page

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975). (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/419/565/#tab-opinion-1951045

FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1415411.html

Appellate Division of the Supreme Court of New York. (n.d.). PISTOLESE v. WILLIAM FLOY

| 69 A.D.3d 825 (2010) | 20100122425. Retrieved from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20100122425#