Running head: Article 5 1

Artifact # 5

Jordan K. Roberson

College of Southern Nevada

Article 5 2

Abstract

This paper will be analyzing the scenario for Article five by, compare four different court

cases. The two court cases that are for the liability charges are Warrington v. Tempe Elementary

School District and Goss v. Lopez. The cases that are against liability charges are Pistolese v.

William Floyd Union Free district. In the final paragraph I will determine were the school will

get charged with liability.

Article 5 3

Article # 5

At Swanston Middle school, a student name Ray Knight was suspended for too many

unexcused absences. The school sent the student home with a note to notify his parents, but Ray

threw the note away on the way home. The school was also supposed to notify the parents by

phone. On the following day, Ray Knight was shot while at a friend’s house. His parents who are

understandably upset because they were not notified of their son’s suspension and want to sue

the school of liability.

This case is a liability tort which means that plaintiff is seeking money for the damage

from the defendant. This case also involves negligence on the school’s behalf. The parents

believe that if the school would have properly notified them of the suspension their son would

have never been shot. According to The Legal Rights of Teachers and student “Negligence is a

breach of one’s legal duty to protect others from unreasonable risks of harm.” (McCabe, 2014)

The parents would have to prove that not notifying them was the cause of their son being shot.

The Legal Right of Teachers and Student states “Four elements must be present to support a

successful claim: The defendant must protect the plaintiff. The duty is breached by the failure to

exercise an appropriate standard of care. The negligent conduct is the proximate or legal cause of

the injury. An actual injury occurs.” (McCabe, 2014) For the Knights to win the suit, the would

give to prove all the elements to support their claim of negligence.

The first case that supports the Knight’s claim for negligence is Warrington v. Tempe

Elementary School District. These cases are similar because the incidents occurred while the

students were out of school. Warrington V. Tempe Elementary School District case deals

mostly with foreseeability and unreasonable risk of harm. According to Leagle “Because one of

Mr. Toth's duties was school bus stop placement, an operational function, he had a duty not to
Article 5 4

subject the District's students to a foreseeable and unreasonable risk of harm.” (Warrington v.

Tempe Elementary School Dist. NO. 3, 2018) This means that because it was the school’s duty

to make sure the parents are notified by phone to prevent foreseeable harm. The school should

have known that there was a risk that he was going to throw the note away. If the parents were

properly notified, the could have found someone to watch their son, while they were at work.

The next case that supports Knight’s claim for negligence is Goss v. Lopez. Goss v.

Lopez involved violation of due process, which relates to the fact that the Knights were not

properly notified of Ray Knight’s suspension. According to Oyez “The Court held that Ohio was

constrained to recognize students' entitlements to education as property interests protected by the

Due Process Clause that could not be taken away without minimum procedures required by the

Clause.” A letter note to the student is not enough to notify the parents. The school also did not

give parents the right to appeal the suspension because they did not call them. According to oyez

“The Court found that students facing suspension should at a minimum be given notice and

afforded some kind of hearing.” Ray Knight’s parents were not given notification or a hearing

for his suspension,

The first case that is against the Knight’s negligence claim is Pistolese v. William Floyd

free District. The cases are similar because the incidences occur while the student was out of

school. Pistolese was assaulted by another student while walking home from school.

(PISTOLESE v. William Floyd Union Free District, 2018) In the case, Pistolese v. William

Floyd free District the court determined “ the incident occurred at a time when the injured

plaintiff was no longer in the defendant's custody or under its control and was, thus, outside of

the orbit of its authority.” (PISTOLESE v. William Floyd Union Free District, 2018)This means

that if the student is not in the school custody, they are not responsible for their injury. The
Article 5 5

school is not liable for neglect because the child was not in their care. Ray Knight school is not

liable for him getting shot because it was out of the school authority. The was nothing that the

school could have done to prevent Ray Knight from getting shot at his friend’s house. Because

the shooting of Ray Knight occurs outside of the school’s authority the Knight’s cannot sue for

negligence.

Sanford v. Stiles is the next case that is against the Knight’s claim for negligence. In this

case, a school Counselor is being sued for neglect after Sanford’s son committed suicide.

(Stanford v. Stiles, 2018) The court determined that the counselor was not liable for neglect.

According to FindLaw “She has failed to meet the necessary elements for a state-created danger

claim under Third Circuit law.” This means to have a successful suit the plaintiff needs to prove

the necessary elements for neglect. According to The Legal Rights of Teachers and students

“Four elements must be present to support a successful claim: The defendant has a duty to

protect the plaintiff. The duty is breached by the failure to exercise an appropriate standard of

care. The negligent conduct is the proximate or legal cause of the injury. An actual injury

occurs.” In Knight’s case, they do not have enough evidence to prove all of these elements in the

claim for negligence. Without the evidence of the four elements, the Knight claim would be

invalid.

Ray’s parents do not have the right to sue the school for negligence, because of lack of

evidence. Ray was not under the school authority while he was suspended from school and the

school was not the proximal cause of injury. The Ray injury was not caused by any action on the

part of the school. Therefore the school is not responsible for Ray getting shot.
Article 5 6

References

Goss v. Lopez. (2018, May 2). Retrieved from Oyez: https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898

McCabe, N. H. (2014). Legal Rights of teachers and Student, 3 edition. New Jersey : pearson

Education inc.

PISTOLESE v. William Floyd Union Free District. (2018, May 2). Retrieved from Leagal:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/innyco20100122425

Stanford v. Stiles. (2018, May 2). Retrieved from FindLaw: https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-

circuit/1380734.html

Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School Dist. NO. 3. (2018, May 2). Retrieved from Leagle:

https://www.leagle.com/decision/1996436187ariz2491402