Documenti di Didattica
Documenti di Professioni
Documenti di Cultura
Maya Labat
Abstract
This paper discusses how tort liability can affect not only a student, but also their families and
community. Ray Knight, a middle school student, was suspended due to unexcused absences.
Although school district procedures required telephone notification and prompt written notice by
mail to his parents, the school only sent a notice with Knight. Knight would take the notes and
throw them away making his parents unaware of his suspension. During his first day of
suspension, Knight was accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house. In this paper we will
discuss the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence. We will
also discuss possible grounds for defense from both sides that is supported by case, state, federal,
It’s always easy to place the blame if you feel like your rights have been violated.
Emotions can also be elevated if someone got hurt, or even passed away due to tort liability. Tort
liability is a civil wrong, independent of contract, for which a remedy in damages is sought
(Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 321). In this paper we will be discussing cases
which include two different types of liabilities, contributory and comparable. Contributory
liability is when a plaintiff is denied recovery of damages if their actions are shown to have been
subsequently responsible for their injuries (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014, p. 30).
The courts usually do not consider children under fourteen to have contributory liability,
although it can be assessed case by case. Comparative negligence is when the plaintiff and/or
one or more defendants bear responsibility in proportion to fault. Now that the types of
Ray Knight, a middle school student, was suspended due to unexcused absences.
Although school district procedures required telephone notification and prompt written notice by
mail to his parents, the school only sent a notice with Knight. Knight would take the notes and
throw them away making his parents unaware of his suspension. During his first day of
suspension, Knight was accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house. In this paper, we will
discuss the difference between contributory negligence and comparative negligence. We will
discuss possible grounds for defense from both sides that is supported by case, state, federal, and
constitutional law.
The first question that could be asked is do Ray’s parents have grounds to pursue liability
charges against the school district? They could argue that the school acted negligent similar to
Carr v School Board of Pasco County. In Carr, Micheal Carr was a high school student who
TORT LIABILATY: WHO IS REALLY AT FAULT 4
participated in a physical fitness program at his school. The students were required to participate
in various events to test their stamina and strength. In one event approximately one hundred
students were on the track to walk or run a timed mile. The walkers were expected to stay in the
outside lanes, and the runners in the inside. Michael and several runners broke out of the inside
lanes as the race continued. Michael ran into a metal bench, which displaced his kneecap to the
outside of his leg. There were disputes on where the heavy movable metal bench was positioned
during the time of the race. Some say it was on the concrete away from the track while others say
it could have partially been on the track. The jury applied the standard premises liability theory
and found the school board liable. In both cases, the school did not follow procedures to ensure
proper communication therefore making the school district liable for comparative negligence.
To go back to Knights’ case there is another question one might ask. Did Knight receive
his due process that is guaranteed under the Fourteenth Amendment before he was put on
suspension? In Goss v. Lopez, the courts ruled in favor for Goss due to him not receiving due
process of the law before their suspension. In Goss, students were protesting on school property
where a class was being upheld. When school officials asked them to stop, they did not. School
officials then called in local police to escort the disruptive students out. A student was seen
attempting to attack the police and that escalated to complete ciaos amongst students. Many
students were given 10 days of suspension. Goss, a student at the school, filed an appeal
claiming that he was an innocent bystander in the whole incident and did not receive due process
before his suspension start date. The Supreme Courts ruled in favor of Goss and reversed the
school district’s decision to suspend him. His suspension was expunged from his school records.
The Supreme Courts stated that “Recognizing that a student’s state created property right to an
education that is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the courts ruled that such right cannot
TORT LIABILATY: WHO IS REALLY AT FAULT 5
In the previous cases discussed both were comparative negligence torts that were
ultimately at the fault of the school district. In the case of Knight, the school district can also
harbor a defense with saying that knight was liable for contributory negligence similar to the
Sanford v. Stiles case. Michael Sanford had given his ex-girlfriend a disturbing note about
killing himself after finding out about her and her new boyfriend. His ex-girlfriend became
worried and told a guidance counselor. The guidance counselor then talked about the note to son
colleague, Pamela Stiles, who is Michael’s’ guidance counselor. Stiles later called Michael into
her office. She stated that some of his friends were concerned that he was upset with some sort
of situation with some girl. He replied with strait forward answers that did not raise any
suspense for Stiles. He had asked in another later meeting with Stiles if the person who Stiles
the letter was a “blonde haired girl”. Stiles stated that she could not share that information. That
night Michael went home and hung himself. Even though this event was a tragedy, the courts
ruled in favor of Stiles. Stiles followed protocol when she gets a lead about anyone suspected of
being suicidal. The jury also could not conclude that her conduct indicated any form of
negligence. Michael’s mom, who fought for Michael in court, could not prove causation under
tort law since Stiles was entitled to immunity under Pennsylvania law.
In Knight’s case, the school district could also argue that the events that happened outside
of school property and hours fall on the student’s contributory negligence similar to Colette v
Tolleson Unified School District. In this case, five students left school premises during school
hours under a modified closed school policy. Under their policy, students could not leave school
property unless approved with specific parental permission. Students with 3.0 GPA or higher got
TORT LIABILATY: WHO IS REALLY AT FAULT 6
lunch passes where if they had the lunch pass on them, they could leave the school premise.
Thompson, a student, was stopped by a security guard and asked Thompson for his lunch pass.
He admitted that he did not have one. The security guard repeatedly told Thompson that he could
not leave the premises without the pass. Thompson ignored the security guard and stated he had
to get school books for his next class. His friends met him by his car and they headed to the
local mall for lunch. As they were speeding to get back to school, Thompson lost control of the
wheel and hit an oncoming car. The passengers in the car that Thompson hit filed suit against the
District under tort liability claiming the school district as having comparative negligence. The
courts ruled that even though they had a compromised closed policy, were not at fault for events
In conclusion, dealing with tort liability in the school system can be an emotional
rollercoaster for students, their families, and their communities. If I were ruling in the case of
Knight I would rule that the district is not liable for his death. Even though the school failed to
follow proper protocol with how the written notice of suspension was sent it doesn’t justify
comparative negligence. The tragic event happened outside of school property which would not
give the right for Knights parents to blame the school for their sons’ actions.
TORT LIABILATY: WHO IS REALLY AT FAULT 7
Works Cited
Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. E. (2014). Leagal Rights of Teachers
circuit/1380734.html
appeals/1291266.html
court/419/565.html
appeal/1143031