Running head: KNIGHT V BOARD OF EDUCATION 1

Knight v Board of Education

Lea Martinez

College of Southern Nevada

Dr. Warby

EDU 210

June 23, 2017

KNIGHT V BOARD OF EDUCATION 2

Knight v Board of Education

A middle school student named Ray Knight was suspended from his school because of

unexcused absences. The school districts are required to send a written notification and a

telephone notification to the parents. Unfortunately, the school decided to send a note home with

the student, and it was thrown away. The parents were unaware that their son was suspended

from school. The first day that Ray Knight was suspended he was accidentally shot while he

visited a friend. As a result of their son being shot, the parents want to pursue liability charges

against school officials. Do the parents have the right to pursue charges?

Ray’s parents feel they have the right to sue based on the school districts negligence of

not following school procedures. They believed that if the school district had followed school

procedures, the accident could have been avoided. According to Underwood and Webb, (2006)

“Four elements of negligence must be established for a plaintiff to win in a negligence lawsuit:

duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury” (p. 100). In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education

of Montgomery County, a student made suicidal statements to both students and school

counselors. The two school counselors were found to be negligent because they failed to

communicate to a parent their child’s statements of suicide (Eisel v. Board of Education of

Montgomery County 584 A.2d 64 (1991). The school district also failed to notify Ray’s parents

about his upcoming suspension.

Another case that would support the parent’s argument is Jerkins v. Anderson. In this

case, a nine-year-old boy named Joseph Jerkins was struck by a car after having an early

dismissal day from school. As a result, Joseph was paralyzed from neck down. The parents

claimed that because they did not know about the early dismissal they made no arrangements to

have someone pick up their son from school. They stated, “they were not made aware of the
KNIGHT V BOARD OF EDUCATION 3

early-dismissal days, including June 15, through any school communication” (Jerkins v.

Anderson 922 A.2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285). The parents of Ray Knight were also not

informed by the school of their son’s suspension.

The school board will argue that they should not be held responsible for injuries that

occurred off campus and by a third party. In the case of Davis v. Mangelsdorf, Davis was in an

automobile accident, and she wanted to recover from personal injuries that she received from

William Smith, a driver that lost control of his vehicle because of an epileptic seizure. Davis

took legal action against the drivers former physician, Dr. Mangelsdorf, stating that the physician

was negligent when he told Smith that he could stop taking Dilantin and failing to inform him of

the dangers when discontinuing the drug (Davis V. Mangelsdorf 138 Ariz. 207, 208, 673 P.2d

951, 952 (App. 1983). The court ruled in favor of Dr. Mangelsdorf because he was no longer

William Smith’s physician when the accident occurred.

Another case the school board could use to argue their point is Collette v. Tolleson

Unified School District. This case involved an automobile accident that occurred off campus.

Thomason, went off campus with some friends to go to the mall during lunch break. On the way

back to the school, Thomason lost control of his vehicle hitting Scofield’s car. An officer

estimated that Thomason was driving at seventy-two miles per hour. The plaintiff argued that

the school was negligent and failed to enforce their closed-campus policy. The school claimed

that they were not negligent and that they are not responsible for injuries or accidents occurring

off campus during lunchtime (Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No. 214, 203 Ariz.

359, 362 (App. 2002). The court ruled in the school district’s favor.

In the case involving Ray Knight, I believe the court will rule in Ray’s favor. The school

officials did not follow proper procedures to notify the parents of an upcoming suspension
KNIGHT V BOARD OF EDUCATION 4

involving their and therefore breached their duty. In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of

Mongomery County, the school never notified the parents of their child’s suicidal statements

(Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County 584 A.2d 64 (1991). They had the duty to

have the parents aware of what their child was saying just like the school officials had the duty to

inform Ray’s parents that he had a suspension. Also the case of Jerkins v. Anderson, the school

did not remind or inform the parents of Joseph Jerkins that there was an early dismissal day on

June 15. The court said, “Schools have a duty to exercise reasonable care for supervising

students safety at dismissal (Jerkins v. Anderson 922 A. 2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285). Based on

the court cases the school district failed in its duty to follow school procedures, and that led to

Ray Knight’s injury.

KNIGHT V BOARD OF EDUCATION 5

References

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No. 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362 (App 2002).

Davis v. Mangelsdorf 138 Ariz. 207, 208 673 P.2d 951, 952 (App. 1983)

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County 584 A,2d 64 (1991).

Jerkins v. Anderson 922 A.2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285.

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.

Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrell Prentice Hall.