TORT AND LIABILITY 1

Tort and Liability

Yvonne Jackson

College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Abstract

This paper will explore four U.S. Supreme Court cases. These cases will be found online

(Internet) and on the CSN online library. The point of this research is to compare each of these

court cases and to establish the pros and cons of a student’s accidental shooting at a friend’s

house after he was suspended from school. Because the child’s parents never received a

notification of the child’s suspension we will take a look at the parent’s responsibilities and the

parents possible neglect. This paper will also consider the school’s elements of negligence to

establish the school’s liability We will look at the school’s duty to protect the child and if there

was a breach in the duty. We will also determine the causation and consider the injury that

occurred off of school property. This research and the court cases cited will be used to determine

and support the conclusion.

Keywords: Duty, Breach, Causation, Liability, Injury, Neglect, Policies, Tort

TORT AND LIABILITY 3

Tort and Liability

Ray Night has been suspended for three days from school for truancy. The middle school

that Ray attends did not receive excuse notes from his parents excusing his absences. The school

did not follow school policy and neglected to phone his parents or mail them a letter to notify

them of his absences. Instead, they gave Ray a letter to take home to his parents but he threw it

away. Because of this his parents never received notification of his suspension. Since, he was not

allowed to go to school he went to a friend’s house and on his first day of suspension he was

accidentally shot. Ray’s parents have filed suit.

First, it is not the responsibility of the school to ensure that Ray Knight goes to school. It

is the responsibility of Ray Knight’s parents to make sure their son is physically in school. “The

child is not the mere creature of the State; those who nurture him and direct his destiny have the

right, coupled with the high duty, to recognize and prepare him for additional obligations” (p.

535). For this reason, Ray Knight’s parents have a duty as parents to recognize the importance of

an education and prepare him to attend school. It is their responsibility!

Furthermore, Ray is being neglected. Truancy is considered educational neglect. Ray’s

parents are failing him by not making sure that he is attending school and providing him with an

education. As referred to in the Wisconsin v Yoder case “It is the parents who are subject to

prosecution here for failing to cause their children to attend school, and it is their right of free

exercise, not that of their children, that must determine Wisconsin's power to impose criminal

penalties on the parent” (p. 231). As a result, Ray will suffer without an education and runs the

risk of not finishing school and succeeding in life.

Even though Ray’s parents are responsible for Ray, the middle school has policies in

place for truancy. The middle school neglected to follow these policies when they did not phone
TORT AND LIABILITY 4

Ray’s parents or mail a letter home prior to his suspension. The school should be accountable for

not taking the proper steps to communicate with Ray’s family about his absences. As held in the

Goss vs Lopez case “Ohio law, Rev. Code Ann. Section 3313.66 (1972) of the Code empowers

the principal of an Ohio public school to suspend a pupil for misconduct for up to 10 days or to

expel him. In either case, he must notify the student's parents within 24 hours and state the

reasons for his action” (Underwood and Webb, p. 568). The school had a duty to work with the

family to make sure Ray attended school. There was breach in this duty when they never

actualized a plan with Ray’s parents to correct the problem and improve his attendance. The

school failed to exercise an appropriate standard of care.

Ray’s relationship with the school is considered “a causal connection between the

negligent conduct and the resulting injury” (p. 100) as stated in the book School Law for

Teachers (2006). Because the school did not notify the parents and gave a suspension letter to a

child, a duty of care for was breached and he sustained an injury as result of their incompetent

staff. The school also neglected to hire competent staff as their duty to the students. Although,

Ray sustained his injury off school property the school they should still be held accountable as

held in the Bryant v The United States, “three young students at a New Mexico boarding school

left the school premises without permission and were subsequently trapped in a snowstorm; as a

result, the youngsters suffered extreme frostbite, necessitating the amputation of each student's

legs. The students subsequently sued the federal authorities who ran the school, alleging that the

injuries were proximately caused by the school’s negligent supervision, and the jury returned a

substantial verdict in favor of the students” (p. 654).

TORT AND LIABILITY 5

In conclusion, I believe that Ray’s parents are ultimately responsible for him, however, I

believe the school failed Ray. Ray was a student at their school and he was in their custody when

they gave him the suspension letter. A suspension letter should not be handed to a child who is in

middle school. A suspension letter is serious and it should have been handed to the parent or sent

registered mail. Because the school has no record of prior efforts to communicate with the family

they are liable. They may not have caused Ray’s injury and it may not have happened on school

property but they had the duty to care and protect Ray. They failed at this by not communicating

with his parents. Because of the lack of communication Ray’s parents have every right to pursue

liability charges and win.

TORT AND LIABILITY 6

References

Bryant v. United States, 565 F.2d 650 (10th Cir. 1977).

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565, 95 S. Ct. 729, 42 L. Ed. 2d 725 (1975).

Pierce v. Society of Sisters, 268 U.S. 510, 45 S. Ct. 571, 69 L. Ed. 1070 (1925).

Wisconsin v. Yoder, 406 U.S. 205, 92 S. Ct. 1526, 32 L. Ed. 2d 15 (1972).

Underwood, J. and Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Pearson Educaction.