You are on page 1of 4


Portfolio #3 Tort and Reliability

Arantxa R. Alejandro
EDU 210, 10/16/14


Student Ray Knight was suspended from middle school. The processes by which
his parents are notified require a telephone call and a letter sent in the mail for his parents to
receive. Although, the school district processes were not followed in which Ray was given the
letter notification of his suspension where he threw it out. Rays suspension was unknown by his
parents due to the fact that the letter was thrown out. While visiting his friend on the first day of
his suspension, Ray was accidentally shot.
The first side presented in favor of the parents having defensible grounds to pursue
liability charges is that the school is at fault for educational malpractice. The school district did
not properly communicate to the parents of Ray Knight that he was under suspension. The court
case that relates to this type of miscommunication and educational malpractice is the Eisel v.
Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991). As the court stated in the Eisel v. Board of
Education of Montgomery County (1991) case, the counselors had a duty to use reasonable
means to prevent a suicide when they are on notice, the school district of Ray Knights middle
school had the duty to use reasonable means to prevent the shooting. Ray Knights parents do
have enough defense because the school had knowledge of the suspension and if the district
followed the proper procedures of both a phone call and letter sent directly to the parents then the
situation of the shooting could have been avoided.
The opposing side presented in favor of the parents not having defensible grounds to
pursue liability charges is contributory and comparative negligence. Ray Knight took part in
negligence when he threw away the letter of his suspension that was supposed to be given to his
parents. That was Ray Knights responsibility but he purposely neglected to do so. Ray Knight
essentially caused part of his shooting because if he would have gave that letter to his parents in
the first place, his parents would have probably kept him grounded or under supervision. If he


was under supervision then he would never have even gone to his friends house where the
accident occurred.
Overall, I think that the school district is the most at fault and Ray Knights parents have
enough defensible grounds to pursue liability charges. If it were my child in this situation I
would press charges against the school because they neglected to follow their procedures. Ray
Knights school district neglected the procedure to send the letter in which the parents were not
even informed properly. It was a poor decision on the school district to give the suspended
student the letter to give to his parents. You cannot expect the defiant child who is probably
angry because of the suspension to show the letter of suspension to his parents. I think that his
parents can press charges for educational and professional malpractice towards that school


Reference List
Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery, 1990
Underwood, J., & Webb, L.D. (2006) School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications. New
Jersey: Pearson Education, Inc.