You are on page 1of 4

Running head: PORTFOLIO 3 KLIMER

Portfolio 3

Mekhaela Klimer

College of Southern Nevada

EDU 210

Professor

12 March 2017
PORTFOLIO 3 2

Ray Knight

Ray Knight was a middle school student. He had multiple unexcused absences and as

punishment was suspended for three days. Ray was given a note to give to his parents to inform

them that he was suspended. Needless to say the note was never given to his parents. Usually

schools are required to send a written notice by mail or they are supposed to contact the parents

by telephone to inform them of their child. On day one of his suspension Ray was at a friends

house and was shot. His parents had no idea that he was not at school that day nor that he was

suspended.

The Side of the Parents

The parents of Ray Knight absolutely have a case against the school. As a middle school

student who is probably in the age range of 12-14, handing him a piece of paper with punishment

scripted on it and expecting him to only give it to his parents is unrealistic. The parents can say

that they were not notified about their childs suspension, because in this case they never

received any notice. If the school had actually followed policy and got confirmation that the

parents are aware of the suspension things might have turned out differently.

If the parents had known about Ray, they could have made sure he was at home that day

versus hanging out at a friends house where things went south. The school couldnt have known

that something bad would happen, but they did fail to follow procedure.

The Side of the School

The school can argue that since the student was off campus they cannot be held

responsible for injuries. Also, since the student was off campus it was not their duty to protect

him. There was a somewhat similar case in 1974, Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School
PORTFOLIO 3 3

District. 10-year-old Michael Hoyem was attending summer school and left school early before

classes ended. Off school premises he was hit by a motorcycle and seriously injured. The parent

was not notified that her child was not in his last class. The parent was also upset that the school

was very negligent with the supervision on campus. With lack of supervision the student was

able to just walk off campus (Justia).

In regards to Ray, the school can continue to argue that they should not be held

accountable for a third person who is actually responsible for Ray being shot.

If the parents of Ray Knight can prove the negligence of the school, they will have a

strong case. In order for this to happen the following four elements of negligence need to be

proven. Duty: The defendant had a duty to protect the plaintiff from unreasonable risks. Breach:

The duty was breached by the failure to exercise an appropriate standard of care. Causation:

There was a causal connection between the negligent conduct and the resulting injury. Injury: An

actual injury resulted (Underwood, Webb. Pg 100). I believe the court will rule in favor of Ray

Knight. Overall if the parents were made aware of their childs suspension, the accidental

shooting could have been preventable. The school did not follow procedure by sending a paper

note home with a student. This neglect resulted in injury.


PORTFOLIO 3 4

Resources

http://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/22/508.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson
Education.