Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
6 and 10 Assignment 1
Lori Hyland
This scenario involves a middle school student named Ray Knight who was suspended
from school for three days for having too many unexcused absences. According to school
district procedures, parents should be notified through a phone call and a written notice sent
home in the mail. However, the school chose to give the suspension notice to Ray for him to
bring home instead of following school district protocol. Rather than bringing the notification
home, Ray through it away, so his parents did not know about his suspension. On the first day of
his suspension, Ray decided to go to a friends house where he was accidently shot. The legal
question is whether or not Rays parents have the right to pursue liability charges against the
school.
One reason to support Rays parents lawsuit against school officials is that the school is
negligent due to a breach of duty when the school failed to notify Rays parents of his three-day
suspension. For instance, in the case of D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board, a middle school
student named K.C. was allowed to sign out of school because of a dress code violation. Just
eight blocks away from the school, K.C. was sexually molested while walking home. Her
parents filed a negligence action against the school district, stating the school breached its duty to
supervise her because they failed to follow the school district policy of parent notification and
allowed K.C., a twelve year old, to call home herself and speak to her brother. The court ruled
that the school district was liable for K.C.s injury and awarded her $20,000 in damages because
the school owed a duty of care to her that it breached when it failed to notify her parents directly
and allowed her to walk home unsupervised (D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board).
Similarly, this case supports Ray Knights parents claim because Rays school also failed to
follow school district policy when it allowed Ray to carry home the suspension notice rather than
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 3
calling his parents and sending a written notice in the mail. Therefore, because the school had a
duty of care to Ray that it breached by not following school district guidelines, the school is
resulting from individuals negligence to perform their professional duties. For instance, in the
case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, two school counselors failed to
notify the parents of a thirteen-year-old Nicole Eisel after being told by some of her peers that
Nicole had made comments about committing suicide. The court ruled in this wrongful death
case that the two counselors were negligent in failing to communicate the students suicidal
comments to a parent because counselors have a duty of care to their students and must use
reasonable means to prevent suicide at all times (Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery
County). This case relates to Ray Knights negligence lawsuit because Rays school also failed
to notify his parents of his three-day suspension, which lead to Rays accidentally shooting
injury due to his parents not being unaware of where Ray was and believing he was in school
that day. Hence, Rays school officials were guilty of professional malpractice because the
individuals involves were negligent in performing their professional duties when they failed to
follow school guidelines and properly notify Rays parents of his suspension.
One reason to oppose Ray Knights parents claim is because the school does not have a
duty to supervise students unless they are on school grounds or under the control of the school.
For example, the in case of Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, a seventh grade student,
Todd Glaser, was chased off school grounds before school by another student and was injured
after being struck by a passing car in the public street. Todd Glasers parents sued the school
district for negligence because they failed to supervise Todd before school. In this case, the state
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 4
supreme court ruled, A school district is under no duty to supervise or protect students who are
not in its custody or control, unless it has assumed the duty to do so by an affirmative act or
promise (Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District). Likewise, in Ray Knights case, Rays
accidental shooting happened outside of the school grounds and out of the schools control.
Thus, the school did not have a duty to supervise Ray because his injury did not occur on school
grounds.
Another case that opposes Ray Knights parents negligence claim is the case of Joseph
Jerkins v. Soweto Anderson. In this case, a student named Joseph Jerkins was released from
school early on a half day and did not inform his parents who usually picked him up from school.
While Joseph was walking home alone, he was hit by a car at an intersection and suffered severe
injuries making him a quadriplegic. His father and brother sued the school for negligence
because the school failed to provide him with written notification of the school calendar and
failed to inform his family that Joseph would be getting out of school early due to a half day on
the day of his accident. In this case, the court ruled that the school district did not have a duty of
care to protect Joseph after school hours and his injury did not occur on school grounds (Joseph
Jerkins v. Soweto Anderson). As in the case of Ray Knight, the injury sustained from the
gunshot wound happened outside of school grounds and during his suspension while he was not
under the schools control. All in all, the school district would not be held liable for Ray
In summary, the court would rule in favor of Ray Knight and his parents lawsuit,
holding the school officials liable for the injuries he sustained. The case of D.C. v. St. Landry
Parish School Board supports the notion that a school has a duty of care to its students, and that
failure to call parents and provide written notification prior to a student being placed on
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 5
suspension is a breach of duty. Also, the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery
County supports Ray Knights parents claim because school personnel have a duty to protect
students from injury by following school guidelines and properly informing Rays parents of his
suspension. Therefore, the school would be found guilty of negligence and required to pay for
the liability damages Ray sustained from being shot while on suspension from school.
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 6
References
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819/D.C.%20v.%20ST.%20LAN
DRY%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.#
EISEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION | 324 Md. 376 (1991). (1991, October 29). Retrieved
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324Md376_1672/EISEL%20v.%20BOARD%2
0OF%20EDUCATION
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a1575-04-
opn.html
84726 -- Glaser v. Emporia USD No. 253 -- Allegrucci, J. -- Kansas Supreme Court.
http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/supct/2001/20010420/84726.htm