Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY

Tort and Liability: Ray Knight

Makanani Keomaka
College of Southern Nevada

Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY

After a number of unexcused absences, a middle school student

named Ray
Knight was suspended from school for three days. His parents were not
notified of his absences because, like any other student, Ray Knight
threw the written notice away. It is mandatory that school districts
notify the students parents by telephone and by mail right away but
the school failed to do that. On his first day on suspension, he was of
to his friends house where he was unintentionally shot.
According to the case, Goss v. Lopez, when an unacceptable
behavior of a student at school takes place, the parents must be
notified promptly after it occurs. As far as this case goes, according to
Julie Underwood (2006), The court held that the due process requires
that students be given (1) oral or written notices of the charges, (2) an
explanation of the evidence the authorities have, and (3) an
opportunity to present their side of the story (p. 168). In this scenario,
the school officials failed to get the message across to Ray Knights
parents. The school only proceeded to give the notice to the student.
Like any other teenager, of course he was not going to pass the notice
on to his parents. He knew for a fact that he would be in big trouble so
obviously; he hid it from his parents. It was a mistake on the schools
behalf because they have not got the message passed on to Mr. and
Mrs. Knight. A responsible thing the school should have done is giving

Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY

Mr. and Mrs. Knight a call regarding the notice as well as mailing the
notice directly to them.
According to Underwood, a students actions that
relates/connects to school, even if it is of school grounds, will result in
school discipline, if it is necessary. If this goes against students, this
could also be used for the students. Unlike the case, Sherrell v
Northern Community Corp., (p.175) where a student was expelled
because of misconduct of-campus, this case is in favor for Ray Knight.
Although Knight was out of school grounds when he got shot, the
school is responsible for the incident. Because the school suspended
him, he wasnt able to attend school that day to avoid that unfortunate
event. If the school had made sure that his parents got the notice, Mr.
and Mrs. Knight would have found a way to prevent their son from
missing school.
Although the Knight family has some things against the school
officials, there are some things that they have on the Knight family.
According to Underwood (2006), she says that academic freedom
allows teachers to determine the discipline of the child when
inappropriate behavior occurs. In this case, Ray Knight broke the rules
by having unexcused absences, which resulted in suspension. In order
for Ray Knight to avoid this suspension, he would have had to attend
school everyday or, have a legitimate reason for missing school.
Therefore, this could have been easily avoided.

Running head: TORT AND LIABILITY

Ultimately, I believe that the Knight family will be able to pursue

liability charges against the school board. The cases that were
provided was much stronger and supportive for the family rather than
for the school. For the Knight family, they can argue that the school did
not do the right procedure in suspending Ray Knight because they
have not got the notice across to the parents by telephoning or mailing
them a notice directly to them. Another point is that although Ray
Knight was shot of school grounds, it related back to the school
because they were the ones who suspended him resulting in this
incident.

Reference

Underwood, J. (2006). School law for teachers. Upper Saddle

River, New Jersey: Pearson Education Inc.