Portfolio Artifact #3

Sabina Smith 1

Date 11/16/2013

Portfolio Artifact #3
Sabina Smith
EDU 210
Professor Dr. Celia Isbell

Portfolio Artifact #3
Sabina Smith 2

In this paper I will work on a case in which Ray Knight, a middle school student, was
suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. Although school districts procedures
required telephone notification and a prompt written notice by mail to his parents, the school
only sent a notice by the student, who threw it away. Rays parent never got the notice so they
didnt know that Ray was suspended. During first day of suspension Ray was accidently shot
while his was visiting his friend. In this work we will try to figure out if Rays parents have
defensible ground to pursue liability charges against school office.
To show that parents have a right to pursue liability charges we can loon in to Eisel v.
Board of Education of Montgomery. In this case two school counselors negligent failure to
communicate to students parents suicidal statements to other students. In this case rule in favor
of parents station that counselors had a duty to use reasonable means o prevent a suicide when
they are on notice. Here we have counselors that didnt do their jobs by informing parents about
student suicidal thought like office people didnt make a phone call to Ryans parents.
The second case that we can use here is King v. Northeast Security inn. After few
incidents school hire a security agency to control school premises but the security falls in
pursuing theirs procedures. The effect of their action student gets brutally attract. Here is an
outcome of the trial:In this appeal, we hold that a school district is not immune from a claim

Portfolio Artifact #3
Sabina Smith 3

that the district failed to take reasonable steps to provide security for persons on its premises.
We further hold that a security service employed by a school district may be liable for negligence
in carrying out its contractually assumed obligations. In this case like in ours the cause of
incident is negligence to pursuing procedures here by securities and in our by office workers.
To show that parents have no rights to go after school district is case Collette v. Tolleson
Unified School District in this case student leaves the school premises to go on break to close
mall 5 miles away. On his way back he causes a multiple car accident that injures several minors.
Zachary (student of the HS) leaving campus broke school policy which require student to sign
out and have prior parental permission. The Arizona court affirmed summary judgment in favor
of the school. Nothing happened to Thomason while at school that affected his ability to drive a
car. Nor was Thomasons driving part of any school activity. The car Thomason was driving had
not been provided to him by the District and the District had no reason to believe Thomason was
an incompetent or dangerous driver. Thomason was driving on a public street with a valid
driver's license for a personal purpose.
Another case that shows that parents shouldnt pursue liability is Glaser v. Emporia
Unified School District. This is personal injury action in which student is hit by the car after he
was chased by another student. Todd ran off school grounds into a public street and got hit by the
car. The accident had a place before begging of school day. Glaser settled his claims against
the driver, and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Emporia School District
and a teacher. The reason was that school doesnt take responsibilities for students before school
and out of school premises. It is like in our case when Ryan that day never went to school so
school wasnt responsible for what was happening to him.

Portfolio Artifact #3
Sabina Smith 4

In my opinion this case should be resolve in contributory negligence because school

didnt to their job fallowing their procedures by calling parent or sending letter. Maybe if parents
would know they would do something with Ryan and he would go to his friends house. Thats
why I think there is as much Ryans fault as school because he never told parents he was
suspended. But there is also third side to this case that even if Ryans parents would knew would
that change anything? Maybe yes but maybe no. Maybe Ryans parents wouldnt do anything
about it and just let him go to his friends house. His parents were the one who didnt excuse his
first tree absents and that was the cause that he was suspended and couldnt go to school on the
day he was shot.

Portfolio Artifact #3
Sabina Smith 5

References:

1) Underwood, J. and Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers concepts and applications
(page 48-49). New Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.
2) Fine Law. Supreme Court of Indiana. Retrieved on November 16, 2013 from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-supreme-court/1053248.html
3) Fine Law. Retrieved on November 16, 2013 from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/