Running Head: Case Scenario 1

Tort and Liability: Case Scenario

(Artifact 3)

Jasmine Vazquez

College of Southern Nevada

Case Scenario 2

Tort and Liability

Are schools’ responsible for off campus situations? In this scenario, school officials

suspended Mr. Ray Knight, and should have called his parents but gave Mr. Knight a paper to

give to his parents. Mr. Knight threw the paper away and on his first day of suspensions he was

shot while visiting a friend.

Ray’s parents have a right to sue the school officials for not following their procedures

and having the parents not know about their child academic standing, especially attendance.

According to Goss v. Lopez (1975), “suspension of 10 days or less, that the student be given oral

or written notice of the charges against him.” Mr. Knight was not given a chance to explain and

present his version for absents. Due to the school letting him be at home he went to a friends

house and was shot.

Another case that supports Mr. Knights parents in suing the school is the case of, Hoyem

v. Manhattan Beach City School District (1978), “if plaintiffs can prove that the pupil's injury

was proximately caused by the school district's negligent supervision, the district may be held

liable for the resultant damages.” This shows that because of the schools negligent supervision,

in this case not informing the parents, the district and school are held liable for the shooting of

Mr. Knight. If Mr. Knight’s parents knew about his suspension then they will make sure that he

would stay at home, or even get his hearing from the school to at least get an in school

suspension.

The school officials have a point in that once the child steps out of school property it is

not their responsibility of the child whereabouts. This is clearly stated in Oglesby v. Seminole

Cnty. Bd. of Pub (1976)

Case Scenario 3

“Where a public school student has been suspended from a school and has been

removed from the school grounds and all school related facilities and programs,

neither the school board nor the supervising principal of the school have any

further duty to supervise or oversee the conduct of such suspended student at

locations which are off campus and which are nonschool related.”

This shows that the school cannot be charged with negligence.

Also, in Collins v. Bossier Parish School Board (1985), “There is nothing in the evidence

to show that had there been more teachers on duty this unfortunate incident would not have still

occurred.” It is possible to infer that, if the parents of Mr. Knight knew about his suspension he

would still head over to his friends place and get shot.

The school officials are the one in the wrong in this scenario. According to Goss v. Lopez

(1975). It clearly sates that students should have a hearing first before being sent home and

getting suspended. In this scenario if Mr. Knight was given the chance to have his hearing he

would be at school, and the school would have chosen a different disciplinary method. A better

disciplinary method would have been detention, or in school suspension.

Case Scenario 4

Reference

Collins v. Bossier Parish School Board, 480 So.2d 846 (La. App. 2 Cir. 1985)

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., 585 P. 2d 851 (Cal. S.C. 1978)

Oglesby v. Seminole Cnty. Bd. of Pub, 328 So.2d 515 (1976)