Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
Artifact #3
Wyatt A. Reid
Ray Knight was suspended for three days because of repeated absences. The school sent
home a note with Ray who proceeded to throw it in the trash. The school policy was that the
school notify the parents through the telephone and a written message through the mail. The next
day Ray went to a friend’s house and was accidently shot. The question at hand is whether the
parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against the school officials or not.
The first side that I will examine is the side of the school and its officials. The first case
that to support the defense of the school is Man v. Palmerton Area School District (2017). This
case is about a football player in high school who received brain trauma in a practice. The player
got hit and jarred and may have been showing signs of a concussion. The coach sent the player
back into practice where he sustained a severe brain injury. The plaintiff argues that the coach
should have followed protocol and not let him continue practicing. The coach and the school one
there was not enough evidence supporting the fact that the coach knowingly put the player in
more risk of injury. Based on this case Ray Knight and his family do not have a good case,
because like the football player, Ray Knight was not knowingly put under any extra danger at
hands of the school. It was his friend and himself that put him in danger and subsequently shot.
The second case that defends the school is Mohamed v. Irving Independent School
District (2017). This case is about a boy who brings a homemade electronic device to school that
could be mistaken for a bomb. The device was confiscated from the student and the school began
to question the student. The law suit is in part about the schools failure to do everything required
by their own rules in this situation. The court ruled that because there was an inherent danger to
the rest of the school that it was permissible that at this time they did not follow protocol exactly.
This is a good defense for the school. Similarly Ray Knight’s school did not follow procedure.
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability 3
The first case that would give the Knight’s a reason to pursue liability charges is Rogers
v. Christina School District (2013). This case is about a student who had made known to a
counselor that she had suicidal feelings. The councilor met with him for four hours and decided
that he was not a risk to himself at this point. The student went home and hung himself. The
parents filed suit saying that the school was negligent. The councilor, under regulations, should
have notified the parents that their son had expressed these feelings, but she did not. The decision
of the court was that because the counselor did not follow regulations she was negligent. The
school of Ray Knight did not follow regulations and therefore his family has grounds to pursue
liability charges based on negligence of the administration not properly notifying his parents of
the suspension.
Clarke, Defendants-Appellants is the second case to show that Ray Knight and his family should
pursue liability charges. In this case a boy who is at school before the class day starts get hit by a
car. The school is found liable for his injury even though they were not officially started, because
they should have assumed supervision. Likewise Ray Knight was not at school, but the school
should have been watching him. He was suspended, but the parents had no knowledge of that,
In conclusion I believe that Ray Knight’s family has a good reason to pursue liability
charges against the school. Based on the case Rogers v. Christina School District (2013) where
the school clearly violated its policy to inform the parents properly. The case of Ray’s
suspension and injury are very similar to this case and for that reason the school is liable for the
References
court/1491353.html
https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20170519e25
ROGERS v. CHRISTINA SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 45, 2012. Retrieved September 23, 2017.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/de-supreme-court/1639232.html