Running head: TORT LIABILITY IN EDUCATION 1

Tort Liability in Education

Michelle Quiroz

College of Southern Nevada

Abstract

A middle school student named Ray Night was suspended for three days due to several

unexcused absences. The school’s disciplinary procedure requires a written notice mailed to the

parents and a phone call home. Instead, school officials only gave notice to Night, whom just

threw it away. Therefore, his parents were completely oblivious to their child’s suspension due to

the school’s failure to follow procedure. On Night’s first day of suspension he decided to visited

a friend’s house, and was accidentally shot. His parents thought he was at school when they were

notified about what had occurred. They want to pursue liability charges against the school due to

tort liability negligence although their son was equally negligent for disregarding the suspension

notice, clearly avoiding to take responsibility for his own actions.

Tort Liability in Education

A tort is a civil wrong that unfairly causes someone else to suffer loss or harm resulting

in legal liability for the person who commits or caused the act. Correspondingly, a negligent tort

is not committed deliberately, rather present when an entity fails to act reasonably or responsibly

when it’s their duty to. A large factor of determining negligence is foreseeability, or if an

ordinary person would reasonably have foreseen that his or her negligent act would imperil

others or themselves. Schools have a duty to follow protocols and precautions in order to ensure

the safety of the students and staff. A school is only responsible during school hours, and on

premises, including external entities such as public school transportation or events (which

generally includes a permission slip or waiver). Schools are not liable after hours or off campus

for any injuries or loss that may occur. After a school has fulfilled its duty, it is the parents

responsibility to reassume control (Cambron-McCabe, N. H., McCarthy, M. M., Eckes, S.,

2014).

In a similar instance the plaintiff in Pistolese v William Floyd Union Free School

District was allegedly assaulted one day, thirty minutes after leaving the school. Instead of riding

the bus, the child chose to walk home with some friends. His parents tried to take action against

the school, but the case was dismissed because the child was no longer under the authority of the

school (PISTOLESE v. WILLIAM FLOYD UNION FREE DISTRICT, 2010). Once school is

over and the students are off campus, the school is no longer liable for the student; legal

guardians must reassume control for the protection of their child. While schools are under a duty

to adequately supervise the students in their charge, they are not insurers of the safety of their

students. Correspondingly, Night’s negligence-claim is unacceptable because he was off campus.

While suspended, the school is not responsible for the student, the parents are.
TORT LIABILITY IN EDUCATION 4

In the case of Warrington v. Tempe Elementary School District, seven-year-old Andrew

was injured on his way home from school. Andrew rode the bus home from school with a friend,

and while they walked home a boy that had earlier threatened to “beat him up” charged at him.

This caused Andrew to run off the sidewalk onto a busy street (where the bus stop is located).

Andrew got stuck by a car; the accident left the boy with severe and permanent brain and spinal

injuries. The parents sued the school for negligence of duty, due to the bus’s unsafe unloading

area. Witnesses testified that it wasn’t the first time they had seen the boys run along the Avenue,

and that several other parents complained about the location. The school was aware of the

situation and failed to inform the parents. The Jury concluded that the fault was mainly

Andrew’s, since he ran off the street, but the District’s breach was a factor due to foreseeability

(WARRINGTON v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL, n.d.). Similarly, Night’s parents were

uninformed about their son’s suspension, but the fault was his own for disregarding the notice

and failing to give his parents the notice.

Students and teachers have the right to due process when facing disciplinary matters

such as suspension. In the case of Goss v Lopez about nine students were suspended due to

misconduct for ten days without a hearing in Columbus, Ohio. It was affirmed that subjects are

entitled to some kind of hearing or notice. It is a violation of their Fourteenth Amendment rights

and the school’s actions were unconstitutional (Goss v. Lopez., n.d.). Schools have a duty to

abide and protocols to follow. It is negligent for a school to not provide at least a notice of

disciplinary action. In Night’s case, he was provided with a suspension notice. The school

partially followed protocol, for they should have notified the parents. Nights failure to act

prudently was a factor in his injury, which is categorized as contributory negligence.

Although, Night’s negligence-based claim can be defended due to the school’s failure to
TORT LIABILITY IN EDUCATION 5

notify the parents, the fault is mainly his. The school gave partial notice, and perhaps if the

parents were aware of the suspension the act wouldn’t have occurred, but the school’s intentions

were not deliberate. The student was aware of his own actions, which the school could hold

against with a comparative negligence claim. This is a legal defense that reduces the amount of

damages that a plaintiff can recover in a negligence-based claim, based upon the degree to which

the plaintiff's own negligence contributed to cause the injury. Night’s injury was not foreseeable,

nor the schools responsibility, therefore the school is not liable for a negligent tort claim.
TORT LIABILITY IN EDUCATION 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. (n.d.). Retrieved April 24, 2017, from

[Link]

PISTOLESE v. WILLIAM FLOYD UNION FREE DISTRICT | 69 A.D.3d 825 (2010). (n.d.).

Retrieved April 24, 2017, from

[Link]

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

WARRINGTON v. TEMPE ELEMENTARY SCHOOL | 3 P.3d 988 (1999). (n.d.). Retrieved

April 24, 2017, from

[Link]

TEMPE%20ELEMENTARY%20SCHOOL