PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 1

Portfolio Artifact #3

Amy Benson

CSN EDU 210

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 2

Scenario:

Ray Knight is a middle school student that was suspended from school for three days

because of his unexcused absences. The school district has communication procedures to follow

with the parents before a suspension can occur, which are a call home to the parent, followed by

expediting a letter home in the mail. However, the school in this case choose to just send a letter

home with Ray himself, which resulted in him throwing the letter away and the parents never

receiving notice of this suspension. On the first day of his suspension, Ray was the victim of an

accidental shooting while visiting a friend’s house.

Do Ray’s parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against school

officials? Why or why not?

Pro Support:

The school did not follow the districts communication procedures by properly informing

Ray’s parents of this suspension. These procedures are put in effect for a reason and since the

school ignored this protocol, the school officials were negligent. Under the elements of

negligence, the school did not fulfill their duty to protect the plaintiff, the duty was breached by

their failure to follow appropriate standard of care, there was a causal connection between the

school’s negligence and the injury, and as a result an injury occurred. In the Eisel v. Board of

Education of Montgomery County 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991), the court found two school

counselors negligent for failing to communicate to the parents of a student that was threatening

suicide the information that they had from other students (Underwood, Webb, 108). This court

case, which was the first of its kind, illustrates that educators can be held accountable in the court

of law for not communicating to parents.

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 3

Another court case that supports the right to hold a school/educator responsible for failure

to properly communicate is, Sain v. Cedar Rapids Community School District 626 N.W. 2d

115, 118 (Iowa 2001). This case was in relation to college student Bruce Sain losing his

basketball scholarship due to faulty information from his high school counselor. The court found

the counselor and district at fault for this student losing his scholarship only because of some bad

information from the counselor. This has nothing to do with an injury. So if the court ruled in

favor of this student due to a lack of or false information, then surely these parents of Ray Knight

would have a case against the school.

Con Support:

On the other hand, the court ruled that the school district was not liable for educational

malpractice in the court case Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co., 893.80 (4)

(2001-2002). Many instructional malpractice lawsuits have been litigated, although none have

been successful due to inadequate information backing the argument. There have been

professional malpractice suits successfully litigated for students, although that number is limited.

This leads me to believe that in order for the court to find a school district negligent for faulty

communication, there has to be strong argument and an abundance of information in order for a

student or family to be successful in a case.

In the case of Ray Knight, how can the court decide whether or not he would have been

shot regardless of the suspension? For example, if this child was struggling to make it to school

anyway, (with all of his unexcused absences), then how can the court determine if Ray would

have been at school that day or at his friend’s house? Although there is negligence in proper

communication on the school’s part, there is obviously a lack of responsibility on the student and

his parents in seeing that their son make it to school every day. As a result the plaintiff might
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 4

have a hard time showing that the school is responsible for the causation of the injury. In the

court case Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District 54 P. 3d 828 (2002), Zachary Collette’s

parents sued the district for negligence in allowing their son to leave the school campus for lunch

without giving the school permission to allow him to leave campus. The court found that injuries

that occurred during the car accident that Zachary caused while off campus for lunch could have

happened with or without the parents’ permission and therefore found the district not liable. In

reviewing the court’s decision on this particular case, I am lead to believe that the court would

make the same decision in regards to the case with Ray Knight.

My Conclusion:

I found myself struggling to make a decision on whether or not I felt the school would be

considered negligent and liable for Ray’s death. Ray obviously had a history of not showing up

for school, which is why the suspension occurred. I feel that having that many unexcused

absences shows that his parents weren’t being diligent in their responsibilities in regards to their

son’s education. In that case, Ray could have been shot on any other given day that he chose not

to show up to school. On the other hand, the school has policy procedures in communication

with its families and not following these procedures was negligent. I believe that the school will

be held liable for negligence but to what degree I’m not sure. This is such an unfortunate

situation that resulted due to the school’s lackadaisical attitude on following the proper steps in

communication with its students and their families represented.

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 5

References

• Abbot, P. (2013). Sain V. Cedar Rapids Community School District: Providing Special

Protection for Student-Athletes? Retrieved June 18, 2015, from

http://digitalcommons.law.byu.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1147&context=elj

• FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (2002, September 12).

Retrieved June 18, 2015, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-

appeals/1291266.html

• Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Legal Framework for the Public Schools. In School

law for teachers: Concepts and applications. Upper Saddle River, N.J.: Pearson/Merrill

Prentice Hall.