Portfolio Artifact #3 1

A Case on Tort and Liability: Knights V. School District

Taylor Lesko

EDU 210
Portfolio artifact #3 2

There was a middle school student named Ray Knight who had been suspended for three

days because of the number of his unexcused absences. The normal school district procedure

would have been to give a telephone notification and a written notice that would have been

mailed to Knights parent or guardian. The school did not go through with the notifications and

only sent a notice for the student to bring home to his parents. Ray Knight did not give the notice

to his parents but instead threw it away which in result led his parents to not be aware of his

three-day suspension from school. During the start of his suspension he was visiting a friend at

their home where he was then accidently shot. It is now up for discussion as to who is liable

during this event.

There are two court cases that provide an argument for the school to win in favor against

the Knights. The Rollins V. Concordia Parish School board is about a fourth grade student named

Lisa Rollins who fractured her leg while playing on the merry-go-round during her physical

education class. There was a substitute teacher named Mrs. Green on duty that was watching the

class of 40 students. Mrs. Green interacted with the girls on the merry-go-round when she

noticed that it was spinning too fast. She told all of the girls including Lisa, to slow down. Mrs.

Green was interacting with another group of students when she heard the girls yelling that Lisa

was hurt. The court found that the school board was negligent in not properly supervising all of

the activities going on in the playground. But that also found that Lisa Rollins was guilty as well.

She was fifty percent at fault with her own injury because although she was informed that this

activity was going to be detrimental to her, she chose not to listen. This case represents a defense

for the school district in the Knight case because Ray Knight knew that his parents werent aware

of his suspension and still threw away his notice so he could be at his friends house without his

parents being aware of his whereabouts.

Portfolio artifact #3 3

The next court case that would be in the schools favor instead of the Knights, is

Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District. There was a gang-related shooting that

involved one of the high school students, Ernest P. Brownell. This shooting didnt happen on

campus but it was near the campus immediately after school was dismissed for the day. The

school did take precautions to minimize gang related problems that were happening but was not

aware that the shooting was going to occur that day. The court refused to hold the school district

liable for the shooting because it wasnt foreseeable. This is in favor for the school district in the

Knight case because they did send out a notice to the parents of Ray Knight and they were not

responsible for him throwing away the notice before it was delivered to his parents. Also the

school wasnt able to foresee him getting shot at his friends house while on suspension.

There are two court cases that provide a defending argument for the Knight family

against the school district involved in the accident. Flanagan V. Canton Central School District is

about a fifth grade boy named Brendan Flanagan. He was in the boys locker room while at

school when he was pushed from behind. During the fall he hit his head on a nearby locker. This

push and shove resulted in him having to go to the emergency room and having his spleen

removed. There was no teacher in the locker room during this incident because they were in the

gymnasium speaking with another student. Flanagans mother decided to take this accident to

court because she thought that his injury was a result of negligent supervision. The court

recognized that although a school has a duty to adequately supervise its students, it is not an

insurer of those students safety. The school should only be liable for foreseeable injuries but in

this case the court ruled in favor of Flanagan. The kids were misbehaving before so the

supervisor should have foreseen an incident of misconduct occurring in the locker room room

and should have been with them to make sure an accident like this didnt happen. This helps the
Portfolio artifact #3 4

Knights side of the argument because since the school was aware of how many unexcused

absences Ray Knight had, they should have taken the right steps to contacting his parents so they

were aware of the situation. They should have been able to foreseen from his actions that he

wouldnt have given the note to his parents.

The second court cause in favor of the Knight family is Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City

Sch. Dist. This case involves a ten-year-old boy named Michael Hoyem who decided to leave his

elementary school with out permission prior to the end of his classes. He was walking four

blocks away when he was then hit by a motorcyclist and was injured. Hoyem decided to bring

this case to court because allegedly, his injures were the result of the school districts negligent

supervision. The majority of the court ruled that the school has a duty to prevent off campus

injuries by giving the correct amount of supervision to make sure students are on school grounds.

The court case is perfect for the Knight family because the school should have given the correct

amount of supervision and concern when dealing with Ray Knight. They were aware of what

kind of student he was and they should have made their decisions on how to handle this

suspension based on prior experiences.

In conclusion, I feel that the majority of the responsibility falls upon the child in this

instance. The reason I feel this way is because although he was at home due to the suspension

from school, the school did not force him to go to his friends house. The only error that I feel

resides with the school was the laziness of not mailing a written note detailing the students

suspension as well as not calling the parent of the child. Even though these actions were not

performed, I believe this outcome would have most likely still happened. At anytime, Knight

could have been able to travel to his friends house. The school should not be held liable for this
Portfolio artifact #3 5

event as the incident did not occur on school grounds and the school did not have any

foreseeable way of determining that Knight was going to be shot during his suspension.
Portfolio artifact #3 6

Reference:

ROLLINS v. CONCORDIA PARISH SCHOOL BOARD, FAILURE TO SUPERVISE

SCHOOL PLAYGROUND MERRY-GO-ROUND. (n.d.). Retrieved September 25,

2016, from http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/rollins.htm

Brownellv.LosAngelesUnifiedSchoolDist.(1992).(n.d.).RetrievedSeptember25,2016,

fromhttp://law.justia.com/cases/california/courtofappeal/4th/4/787.html

FLANAGANv.CANTONCENTRALSCHOOLDISTRICT.(n.d.).RetrievedSeptember25,

2016,fromhttp://caselaw.findlaw.com/nysupremecourt/1257072.html

Hoyemv.ManhattanBeachCitySch.Dist.(n.d.).RetrievedSeptember25,2016,from

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supremecourt/3d/22/508.html
Portfolio artifact #3 7