Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Karen I Villatoro-Gonzalez
EDU210 * Artifact #5
May 6, 2016
2
TORT AND LIABILITY
ABSTRACT:
Ray Knight middle schooled was accidentally shot by his friend during a suspension from
school. The parents were unaware that he was suspended and in this artifact, we study cases that
will either support or not, define terms and help us understand our responsibilities. We will be
covering and cases such as Pistolese v. William Floyd union Free District, Goss v. Lopez, Joseph
Jerkins v. Anderson and the Pleasantville Board of Education. The terms we learn are the
meanings of foreseeability and its clauses, contributory and comparative negligence as well as
Tort Claim and Liability. At the end, we come to a conclusion of what we would rule in this case
and if the action was something foreseen by the district or just an accident with no valid case for
a lawsuit.
3
TORT AND LIABILITY
Ray Knight was accidently shot while visiting a friends house during a
suspension which his parents were unaware of. In the case of Pistolese v.
William Floyd union Free District, we see a case where the district is sued for
negligence and we compare its outcome to our case at hand. In this case,
late June 2008 during the last day of the school year 2007-2008, an infant
riding the school bus as he normally did. The incident occurred about 30
minutes after the child left the school grounds and while the schools are
under a duty to adequately supervise the students in their care, they are not
insurers of the safety of their students. A schools duty is equivalent with and
associated with its physical custody and control over a child and its custodial
duty ceases once the student has passed out of its range of authority and
the parent is perfectly free and able to reassume control over the childs
protection. In this case, the incident occurred at a time when the injured
plaintiff was no longer in the defendants custody or under its control and
was outside of its range of authority. They granted the defendants motion
that they had demonstrated prima facie (based on first impression, accepted
law and the plaintiffs failed to raise a triable issue of fact. They also failed to
Ray Knight, we can say the same, that the school did not foresee the
4
TORT AND LIABILITY
the parents about and therefore making this case a little different. We will
review further and get to a conclusion after examining other cases as well as
action such
of proximate cause coincides with the event which is the primary cause of
that this or her negligent act would imperil others. Whether by event that
causation of injuries.
schools and one junior (middle) school in Columbus, Ohio were given a 10
day suspension from school. The school principals did not hold hearings for
the affected students before ordering the suspensions, and Ohio law did not
require them to do so. The principals actions were challenged and a federal
5
TORT AND LIABILITY
court found that the students rights had been violated. The case was then
appealed to the Supreme Court. In a five to four decision, the Court held
that because Ohio had chosen to extend the right to an education to its
had occurred. The Court held that Ohio was constrained to recognize
Due Process Clause that could not be taken away without minimum
procedures required by the Clause. The Court found that students facing
hearing. If we look at our book, it states that in 1969, Justice Black noted
The book continues to tell us that school staff has been empowered with
authority and duty to regulate pupil behavior in order to protect the interests
actions can be given to students if they do not abide by the rules in place
however, courts can and will intervene if disciplinary procedures are arbitrary
or impair students protected rights. It stated here again that procedural due
states that the school should notify parents, the plaintiff has the right of
Now, if we compare this case along with what is found on the Legal rights of
teachers and students we can say that the parents of Ray Knight have
defensible grounds to pursue liability since they were not informed of the
suspensions which caused injury to their son. The school can state that they
sent written notice and was not given to the by Ray and it will just be the
can take place every day at any time and people can cause injury to
themselves and /or to property. We usually ask what happened and who was
address these questions and to allocate fault between parties when the
answer to the question is not clear. Contributory means that a party may
comparatively negligent for his or her own injuries. Lets first review the
unreasonable risk of harm to others. If you are negligent and your negligent
7
TORT AND LIABILITY
causes another person to become injured then you are legally responsible for
paying damages. According to law and case facts and description found, in
order to succeed on a negligence case, the party will have to prove the
following elements:
The defendant owed a duty toward the plaintiff (reasonable care for
others safety)
The defendants breach was the proximate cause of the injuries (it
The plaintiff suffered injuries for which he or she may claim damages.
unreasonable risk to ones self it creates a duty for the individual to act as a
reasonable person. When the person does not act reasonable and cause
injury, that person may be held entirely or partially responsible for any
resulting injury even if another party was involved. For example a car that
ran a red light and got hit by the car that had the right of way. If in this case
a law suit is filed, the defendant (the person sued) may then assert a
contributory negligence claim against the plaintiff (the person filing the
claim, then the plaintiff may not be able to recover damages or they may be
totaled and then reduced to reflect hi/her contribution to the injury. For
to the plaintiff yet the judge determined that he or she was 50%
responsible for the injury they received than the award will really only
be $7500.00
the resulting injury. The plaintiff must not be more than 50% fault for
With all of this being compared, the outcome of our case for Ray Knight still
may be a little tricky, as a defendant I can claim that a notice was sent and
that Ray did not give it to his parents and that is beyond our control. As a
plaintiff I can say a letter was not given to Ray and therefore the
provide adequate notification. The parents can argue that the school
the Pleasantville Board of Education. In this case, on June 14, 2001 Joseph
Jerkins a nine year old third grader who was always picked up from school by
his father or older brother got home early from school do to an early
dismissal but did not do so and forgot to mention that on the 15th, there
would be another early dismissal. On the 15th, the older brother got to the
around 4:oopm he was struck by a car driven by Soweto Anderson which left
him with severe spine and brain injury rendering him quadriplegic. Clarke
stated that they do provide the parents with enough notification of the early
dismissal dates such are informed in the handbook given to the parents at
the beginning of the school year. Even though Joseph started at South Main
Street in October of 2000, there were still ample notifications made by the
school in form of the 2000-2001 calendar available to parents all year as well
month. The newsletter is not only given to the students but is also mailed
out to the parents and a copy is always kept in the front office as well. In this
school district, children walk to school except if the parents choose to pick
them up or they attend the after school program called K.E.Y.S. so there is no
written policy stating that upon dismissal students must be released to the
10
TORT AND LIABILITY
registered Joseph he was given a registration packet but there was nothing in
the packet for him to sign and return regarding the dates on the calendar.
Neither Charles nor Charles Jr. (Josephs older brother) did not recall seeing
any newsletters in the mail and on December 4, 2002 they filed a complaint.
They stated the following; the driver; Soweto was negligent in the operation
of the vehicle, the owner of the vehicle, Kemba negligently entrusted the
vehicle to Soweto and that that the Board and Clarke negligently, carelessly
care for Joseph. They alleged that more than just the serious and permanent
injuries, they will also be required to devote their resources for Josephs care
and now are deprived from Josephs companionship and filed for emotional
distress. On April 7, 2004 the judge determined that the Board and Clarke
had no duty or reasonable care for Josephs safety and stared that it is
understandable that school children might get injured several hours after
leaving school but it is not the school districts responsibility to prevent such
in favor of Board and Clarke and the plaintiffs claims against Kemba and
Under the Tort Claims Act, a public entity is liable for an injury caused
by an act or omission of a public employee who acts within the scope of his
11
TORT AND LIABILITY
defendants are liable because they owed Joseph a duty of reasonable care
and breached that duty by allowing Joseph to leave without supervision. The
in this matter, the risk of harm was foreseeable, Joseph was only nine years
old. There was no adult or responsible to meet him after school during
dismissal and it is quite foreseeable that a child his age dismissed early from
school without proper supervision could thereafter run into the path of a car
and get struck. The judge did stress the fact that several hours had passed
since dismissal from school and the accident yet it was foreseeable. Along
reasonable care upon the defendants and in this case it weighs in favor of
imposition of a duty in this case. The school officials have the power to act
as guardians when the children are under their care and that includes the
negligent because even though the accident happened later, the schools
responsibility for its younger students does not end when the dismissal bell
rings. The school may take reasonable steps to ensure that younger
students are protected from foreseeable risks of harm which occur when they
defendant had a duty to exercise reasonable care for Josephs safety, there is
still an issue with whether the Board and Clarke breached that duty. There is
evidence to support that the district took the steps to advice parents of the
dismissal times. The plaintiffs also argued that Clarke failed to employ
sufficient staff to supervise the dismissal and state that therefore Clarke is
not entitled to immunity. The trial judge determined that defendants were
in respect to the accident. Defendants have not argued that the order of
addressed in the first instance by the trial judge and has been reversed and
remanded for further proceedings consistent with the opinion stated here in
this case.
With all of the facts presented, some supporting and others not, I feel
that Ray Knights parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability against
school officials because they failed on their duty for care. There is no
evidence to support that a telephone call was made, a letter was sent or
further trouble or injured especially when the parents are unaware. Fault
may definitely be on the school district since they did not follow the any
procedures on notification and lets say that the school could not have
foreseen the accident, they failed. Rays parents have to show that the
13
TORT AND LIABILITY
district did not follow procedures and the court would rule in favor of the
parents.
References:
Foreseeability
Goss v Lopez