Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY 1

Tort and Liability

Mareli Castañeda

College of Southern Nevada

TORT AND LIABILITY 2

Abstract

Ray night is a middle school student who was suspended for three days. The school

district procedures require a phone notice and a written notice by mail to his parents, the school

only sent a notice with the student, who discarded it. To cover up his suspension Ray walked to a

friend’s house and was accidentally shot. There are two cases that support the scenario: Goss v.

Lopez case and Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District. In the Goss v. Lopez case nine

understudies at two secondary schools and one middle-school in Columbus, Ohio, were given

10-day suspensions from school. The principals did not hold hearings for the understudies before

requesting the suspensions. Then a government court found that the understudies’ rights had been

disregarded. The next pro case is Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District. In this case, a

student named Andrew Warrington was dropped off by the school bus on Southern Avenue which

is the designated bus stop settled by the school district. Southern Avenue is a busy street with

fast-moving traffic. While walking home, Andrew kept running on to the road, and was hit by a

car. There is one case that does not support the scenario: Pistolese v. William Floyd School

District. In this case, a young student on the last day of the school year was allegedly attacked by

other students as he walked home from school with friends, as oppose to riding a school bus. In

conclusion, Ray’s parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against school

officials. Therefore, I am against the school.

TORT AND LIABILITY 3

Tort and Liability

Ray Knight is a middle school who was suspended for three days due to unexcused

absences. Despite the fact that the school district procedures required a phone notice and a

written notice by mail to his parents, the school just sent a notice with the student, who discarded

it. This is why Ray’s folks were uninformed of his suspension. On the first day of his suspension,

Ray was accidentally shot while visiting a friend’s house.

In this particular scenario, the school failed to follow the school district’s procedures

requiring calling Ray’s parents and mailing them a written notice. As a result, Ray acted as any

other student taking a bad report to their parents: he threw it away. If his parents had been aware

of his suspension, Ray would never have walked to a friend’s house, and, thus, would not been

shot. The school was negligent because it failed to follow the required protocol. Therefore, Ray’s

parents do have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials because

the school did not follow the stated requirements when a student is suspended. The case that

supports the scenario is Goss v. Lopez (1974). In this case, nine understudies at two secondary

schools and one middle-school in Columbus, Ohio, were given 10-day suspensions from school.

The school principals did not hold hearings for the affected understudies before requesting the

suspensions, and Ohio law did not oblige them to do so. The principals’ activities were tested,

and a government court found that the understudies’ rights had been disregarded. The case then

went before the Supreme Court. Non-notification is the common factor in both cases: which in

the students’ case they were not notified, in Ray’s case his parents were not. In the students’ case

their due process rights of fair treatment were violated through the normal judicial system,

especially as a matter of a citizens’ entitlement.

TORT AND LIABILITY 4

The next case that supports Ray’s case is Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School

District (1996). On February 10, 1993, a district school bus dropped off seven-year-old Andrew

Warrington close to the crossing point of 41st Street and Southern Avenue in Arizona, the bus

stop settled by the district for school children living in Appellants’ subdivision. Southern Avenue

is a busy street with fast-moving traffic of up to forty-five miles per hour. While strolling home

along Southern Avenue, Andrew kept running on to the road. Consequently, he was hit by a car

and critically injured. The similarities that this case has with the case in question is that there is

liability to be held. However, in Andrew’s case the liability is more of comparative negligence,

meaning the plaintiff and/or one or more defendants bear responsibility in proportion to fault.

Therefore, the liability was apportioned to Andrew (45%) his parents (40%), and the district

(15%) in a $6 million award (Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes, 2014).

Pistolese v. William Floyd School District (2010) is a case that rules contrary to Ray’s

case. In late June 2008, during the last day of the school year, the young plaintiff was allegedly

attacked by other youths as he strolled home from school with friends, as opposed to riding a

school bus. The incident allegedly happened along Montauk Highway, around 30 minutes after

the young plaintiff left the school grounds. While schools are under an obligation to regulate the

understudies in their charge, they are not guarantors of the wellbeing of their understudies. A

school’s obligation is coextensive with, and accompanies its physical guardianship and control

over its student, but its custodial obligation stops once the understudy has gone out of its circle of

influence or jurisdiction and the parent is flawlessly allowed to reassert control over the student’s

assurance. Here, the incident happened when the injured plaintiff was no longer in the

defendant’s ambit of control and was, consequently, outside the circle of its power. As needs be,

the defendant exhibited its prima facie entitlement to judgment as an issue of law. In resistance,
TORT AND LIABILITY 5

the plaintiffs neglected to raise a triable issue of actuality. They additionally neglected to express

any nonspeculative premise to trust that revelation may confirm justifying an alternative

outcome. This particular case does not support Ray’s case because the student’s accident was

practically foreseen, meaning he was aware of what could occur, or he could have predicted the

accident since he decided not to take the school bus and, more over walk on the road, inviting an

accident, thereby. Now, since it was the last day of the school year, students participated in

reckless acts. Additionally, this is a case of contributory negligence implicating that the injured

plaintiff failed to act prudently, and is considered to be a contributory factor in the injury

suffered. As stated earlier, the young plaintiff did not take the school bus rather, he decided to

walk home with friends and, due to that, he was attacked, so he is certainly a contributory factor

in the injury he suffered.

Having considered the advantages and disadvantages of comparable cases above, and

based on their rulings, I am of the opinion that Ray’s school is, no doubt, held liable for what

occurred to him. And, at the same time, negligent because if it would have followed the

requirements the school district mandated when a student is suspended, Ray would have been

alive and his parents would have had him at home, safe and sound. Instead of Ray having to walk

to a friend’s house to cover up for being suspended, he would have been safe at his own house

under one of his parents’ supervision. In conclusion, Ray’s case would have had an ending

similar to that of the Goss v. Lopez case. The similarity being, his parents would have been

awarded compensation for the liability of the school.

TORT AND LIABILITY 6

References

Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., & Eckes, S. (2014). Legal rights of teachers and

students. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson.

Goss v. Lopez. (1974). Retrieved from https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898

Pistolese v. William Floyd Union Free District | 69 A.D.3d 825 (2010). Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/In%20NYCO%2020100122425/PISTOLESE%20v.%2

0WILLIAM%20FLOYD%20UNION%20FREE%20DISTRICT

Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. No. 3 | 187 Ariz. 249 (1996). Retrieved from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1996436187Ariz249_1402/WARRINGTON%20v.%20T

EMPE%20ELEMENTARY%20SCHOOL%20DIST.%20NO.%203#