Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 1

Tort and Liability

Amanda L. Laymon

College of Southern Nevada

Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 2

Tort and Liability

A student named Ray Knight received a three day suspension from his middle school.

The suspension was given for too many unexcused absences. When it came time for the

suspension notice, the school only sent one home with the student. They failed to give the

telephone and prompt written mail notice as required by the school district. When Ray got home

he threw it away, so his parents never saw it and never knew he was suspended. On his first

suspension day he went to his friend's house where he was accidentally shot.

The first case to assist the school district in not getting charged for Ray Knight getting

shot is Glaser v Emporia Unified School District (2001). In this presented case, a seventh-grader

was messing around with his friends. He ran to get away from them and ended up on a public

street where he was hit by a car. The accident caused an injury and his parents sued the school

for negligent lack of supervision of students before school, when the accident took place. The

courts ruled in favor of the school stating that the school isn't responsible for supervising or

protecting students who are not in the school building. This means the student is not in school

custody or control if they aren't in the school building, even if they're on school property

(Underwood et al., 2006, p.101). Glaser v Emporia Unified School District (2001) sufficiently

defends the school district's case due to Ray Knight's location. He was at his friend's house, no

where near the school or under the school's supervision or protection, therefore the school district

should not be charged for Ray Knight's shooting.

The second presented case to assist the school district in not getting charged for Ray

Knight getting shot is Brahatcek v Millard School District (1985). In this presented case a ninth

grader, David, was in a physical education class where they were golfing. One of his fellow

students was taking his turn to golf. He told David he was going to take two practice swings and
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 3

then a real one. After David backed up, and he made sure he did, the fellow student took his two

practice swings. He moved up to take his real swing and failed to look where David was. David

moved closer to his classmate and ended up getting hit by the golf club. The teacher was helping

another student when the accident took place, but he did give a written list of instructions for the

students to follow. He didn't realize the rules weren't being followed until the injury took place.

David passed away two days after the accident took place. The courts ruled in favor of the

teacher stating that due to the teacher's thorough instructions he was not liable for the student's

death ("Brahatcek v Millard", 1985). Brahatcek v Millard School District (1985) sufficiently

defends the school district's case due to the way they handled the situation. The school sent home

a notice with the student giving proper instructions of how to go about the suspension.

The first case presented in favor of Ray Knight's family is Greider v Shawnee Mission

Unified School District (1989). In Greider v Shawnee Mission Unified School District (1989) a

handicapped student was put into a woodshop class. In the class the boy cut his hand on a saw.

His teacher claimed to have never heard about the student's limitations, and the special education

instructor claims to have informed the teacher otherwise. The student's mother sued the school

for failing to take appropriate steps to keep her son's safety. The courts ruled in favor of the

mother and the school had to pay for the injuries of the student. Greider v Shawnee Mission

Unified School District (1989) properly defends Ray Knight's case, because just like the school

failed to make sure the handicapped boy was in an appropriate class and safe, Ray Knight's

school failed to give the appropriate notices of the suspension to Knight's parents ("Greider v

Shawnee", 1989).

The second case presented in favor of Ray Knight's family is D.C. v Landry Parish

School Board (2001). In D.C. v Landry Parish School Board (2001) a seventh-grade girl was
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 4

dropped off at school in a skirt that was too short. A member of the faculty, Mr. Hooks, told her

to go to the office and call home to have someone come get her to change. Upon going to the

office, she found out that no one from home was available to pick her up. She told the front

office and they pushed the sign out sheet toward her to sign herself out. On her walk home she

was molested eight blocks away from the school. The court determined that the school was in

violation of improperly protecting/supervising the students during school hours. D.C. v Landry

Parish School Board (2001) defends Ray Knight's case, because just like the school failed to

ensure her parents knew she was leaving, Knight's school failed to ensure that his parents knew

he was suspended and would therefore be safe during that time ("D.C. v Landry", 2001).

My decision regarding this case is for Ray Knight's family in suing the school district for

their son's shooting, with the use of Greidor v Shawnee Mission Unified School District (1989)

and D.C. v Landry Parish School Board (2001). Although Ray threw away the paper regarding

his suspension, the school should have provided other forms of notification for his parents to see

and make sure they got them. Under Greider v Shawnee Mission Unified School District (1989)

the school is required to take student conditions into account and ensure they are supervised and

protected. Knight's school failed to provide Ray safety when it came to his educational

suspension, it was their responsibility to make sure he would have a safe place to be ("Greider v

Shawnee", 1989). D.C. v Landry Parish School Board (2001) added further clarification to the

school's duties. Ray's school should have notified his parents directly of his school suspense. Had

they informed them in the ways they are supposed to, telephone and mail, Ray's parents would

have known he would be home and provided him a safe alternative. They failed to do so and in

turn were responsible for their actions, with Ray getting shot ("D.C. v Landry", 2001).
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 5

References

"Brahatcek v Millard School District". (1985). NRPA Law Review, Parks & Recreation.

Retrieved from http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/brahatck.htm

"D.C. v St. Landry Parish School Board". (2001). Leagle. Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819/D.C.%20v.%20ST.%20LAN

DRY%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.

"Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District". (2001). Find Law. Retrieved from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1364854.html

"Greider v. Shawnee Mission Unified School District". (1989). Justia U.S. Law. Retrieved from

http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp/710/296/1462599/

Underwood, J. & Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.