Running Head: PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT 3: TORT CASES

Portfolio Artifact 3: Tort Cases

Layla Ward
College of Southern Nevada

Portfolio Artifact 3: Tort Cases

2
Case Overview
In the case of Knight V. School District, Ray night, a student in middle school
was accidentally shot while at a friends house. His parents are suing the school for
liability because the school had issued Knight a 3 day suspension but failed to follow
school policy of sending a notice by mail. His parents were unaware of the
suspension and thought that Knight was at school.
In Favor of the Student
In my opinion, this case has a very reasonable grounds for the parents to
pursue liability charges against school officials. The school has a duty to adequately
supervise students and to provide a safe environment. It seems that the school
district had a policy in affect to maintain these duties, and they were blatantly
ignored by the school (Underwood 101). When looking at this case I feel a big
argument to be made is the reasonableness of the activities. We are talking about a
middle school student, whom cannot be considered responsible enough to report a
suspension to his parents. That is the reason there is a procedure to tell the parents
in effect. If the school did not plan to supervise the student, then the parents must
have knowledge of this. In the case of FAZZOLARI V. PORTLAND SCHOOL DISTRICT,
a female student was grabbed and assaulted shortly before starting the school day
(Fazzolari). The school did not provide adequate monitoring of the school grounds
and they did not give this student a safe environment. Similarly, in this case, the
school failed to provide a safe environment or give proper notification that they
would not have the student in school.
Considering the childs age and maturity level, he should not have been
trusted with important documents of such nature (Underwood 104). Since the

Portfolio Artifact 3: Tort Cases

3
suspension was due to unapproved absences I would suspect a case of truancy
here, which further supports the cause that the child does not act in a reasonable
manner. We can look at the case of Brown v. Tesack (1990) in which a student had
stolen a can of duplicating fluid and when it became ignited the student was
severely burned (Tort Cases). In this case, the school was held liable for neglecting
to follow policy of proper disposal of duplicating fluid. In this case, it can also be
taken into consideration that students are not mature enough to make fully
responsible decisions. Disregard to policies that protect students is a serious case
for liability if an injury follows.
In addition to this, you can look at the idea of causation to his injury. It would
appear that the injury was indirectly caused by the schools lack of notification to the
parents (Underwood 105). We would assume that the parents would have been able
to keep an eye on their son, knowing that he was home from school. However,
because the school failed to perform their duty to notify the parents, this student
was out and about without any parent knowing.
In Favor of the School
I suppose a case could be made that the student was never on school
grounds, and therefore they are not liable for the injury (Underwood 105). We could
also say that there is no way to know that he would not have gone to a friends
house, even if his parents had known about the suspension. In a similar case,
Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992), the student was shot by a
gang member shortly after leaving school. The student was no longer on campus
and the courts rules in the schools favor. It was stated that the shooting was not
foreseeable and therefore the school was not liable (Tort Cases).

Portfolio Artifact 3: Tort Cases

4
We could also claim that the child knowingly and voluntarily assumed the risk
while he was at his friends house (Underwood 107). In a similar case, Stevens v.
Chesteen (1990), a student sued for an injury in flag football. The plaintiff alleged
that the coach was not supervising the game, when one student ran into another
whom had recently undergone knee surgery. The courts rules in favor of the school
because there was no evidence that the injury would not have happened if there
was a coach present (Tort Cases). However, as stated, we cannot expect a middle
school child to have the right reasonability to determine what is risky and what is
not.
Conclusion
In conclusion, the school should be held liable in this tort case. They failed to
follow district procedure and trusted a child to be reasonable enough to deliver
important information to his parents. When the student did not act in a reasonable
manner, he ended up being shot at a friends house. The school was neglectful of
their duties and should be held fully liable for the injury caused to the student.

Portfolio Artifact 3: Tort Cases

5

References

FAZZOLARI v. PORTLAND SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1J | Leagle.com. (n.d.). Retrieved April

15, 2015, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19872060734P2d1326_12010.xml/FAZZOLARI
v. PORTLAND
SCHOOL DIST. NO. 1
Tort Cases. (n.d.). Retrieved April 16, 2015, from
http://faculty.coehd.utsa.edu/dthompson/Chapter_11_Cases.html
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Neglegence and Defamation in Schools. In School
law for teachers:

Concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J.:

Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.