EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #3

Jordan Bachman

College of Southern Nevada

 
 Bachman 1

Recently, a middle school student was suspended for three days due to unexcused

absences. This student, Ray Knight, visited a friend’s house on his first day of suspension. Ray’s

parents were unaware of this suspension since the school had only sent a notice through the

student to which he disposed of. The school district’s policy requires a telephone notification and

a prompt written notice to the parents in case of suspension. During this visit to his friend’s

house, Ray was shot.

To support Ray’s parents’ side, two cases can be studied. First, in Perna v. Conejo Valley

Unified Sch. Dist., the court was asked “to decide whether a school district may be held liable for

injuries suffered by a student off school premises and after school hours when those injuries are

the result of the school's negligence while the student was on school premises.” The court upheld

“that in such circumstances the school district may be held liable” ( Perna v. Conejo Valley

Unified Sch. Dist., 1983). This case determined that schools may still be liable for student

injuries off campus if the injuries were a result of negligence by the school. In Ray’s case, the

school failed to notify the parents of the suspension properly which could have increased the

risks of the student off campus during the suspension.

Another case that supports Ray is Jerkins v. Anderson. In this case, the school did follow

appropriate procedures to notify a student’s parent of early dismissal days. The parent argued he

had not received any information, but the court argued that had the school not given him the

appropriate notification, the school could have potentially held liable for injuries off campus by

the student. This applies to Ray’s case since the school failed to properly notify the parents

according to school policy (Jerkins v. Anderson, 2006).

To support the school administrators’, two different cases can be studied. First, in

Collette v. Tolleson, the court determined that “Thomason's sneaking off campus did not
 Bachman 2

increase the ordinary risk of vehicular harm that appellants would have faced if Thomason left

campus with permission” (Collette v. Tolleson, 2002). This can be applied to Ray’s case because

one could argue that the school notifying the parents of the suspension may not have decreased

any of the risks Ray was in. It would be hard to prove that Ray wouldn’t have gone to the

friend’s house anyways had his parents been informed of the suspension.

Again in Jerkins v. Anderson, the school could argue “whether the potential harm is

foreseeable, and whether fairness and policy concerns support imposing a duty” (Jenkins v.

Anderson, 2006). This establishment of foreseeability could be used to determine that the

shooting was not a foreseeable risk known by the school thus the school would not be liable for

the injuries.

In my opinion, the court would rule in favor of the school because the school did not have

any foreseeable risks known for the student by sending him home with a paper notification. The

student’s injuries took place off campus. Also, had the school properly fulfilled the notification

policy regarding suspension, it can’t be said that the risk of being shot would be any less than

with the failure to notify the parents.

 Bachman 3

Citations

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, 203 Ariz. 359 (2002)

Jerkins v. Anderson, 188 N.J. 489 (2006)

Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School Dist., 192 Cal. Rptr. 10 (1983)