You are on page 1of 6

Ch.

6 and 10 Assignment 1

Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment Submission (Portfolio # 3)

Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment Submission (Portfolio # 3)

Lori Hyland

EDU 210 - 1004


Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 2

Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment Submission (Portfolio # 3)

This scenario involves a middle school student named Ray Knight who was suspended

from school for three days for having too many unexcused absences. According to school

district procedures, parents should be notified through a phone call and a written notice sent

home in the mail. However, the school chose to give the suspension notice to Ray for him to

bring home instead of following school district protocol. Rather than bringing the notification

home, Ray through it away, so his parents did not know about his suspension. On the first day of

his suspension, Ray decided to go to a friends house where he was accidently shot. The legal

question is whether or not Rays parents have the right to pursue liability charges against the

school.

One reason to support Rays parents lawsuit against school officials is that the school is

negligent due to a breach of duty when the school failed to notify Rays parents of his three-day

suspension. For instance, in the case of D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board, a middle school

student named K.C. was allowed to sign out of school because of a dress code violation. Just

eight blocks away from the school, K.C. was sexually molested while walking home. Her

parents filed a negligence action against the school district, stating the school breached its duty to

supervise her because they failed to follow the school district policy of parent notification and

allowed K.C., a twelve year old, to call home herself and speak to her brother. The court ruled

that the school district was liable for K.C.s injury and awarded her $20,000 in damages because

the school owed a duty of care to her that it breached when it failed to notify her parents directly

and allowed her to walk home unsupervised (D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board).

Similarly, this case supports Ray Knights parents claim because Rays school also failed to

follow school district policy when it allowed Ray to carry home the suspension notice rather than
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 3

calling his parents and sending a written notice in the mail. Therefore, because the school had a

duty of care to Ray that it breached by not following school district guidelines, the school is

liable for Rays resulting injuries.

Another reason to support Ray Knights parents claim is professional malpractice,

resulting from individuals negligence to perform their professional duties. For instance, in the

case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, two school counselors failed to

notify the parents of a thirteen-year-old Nicole Eisel after being told by some of her peers that

Nicole had made comments about committing suicide. The court ruled in this wrongful death

case that the two counselors were negligent in failing to communicate the students suicidal

comments to a parent because counselors have a duty of care to their students and must use

reasonable means to prevent suicide at all times (Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery

County). This case relates to Ray Knights negligence lawsuit because Rays school also failed

to notify his parents of his three-day suspension, which lead to Rays accidentally shooting

injury due to his parents not being unaware of where Ray was and believing he was in school

that day. Hence, Rays school officials were guilty of professional malpractice because the

individuals involves were negligent in performing their professional duties when they failed to

follow school guidelines and properly notify Rays parents of his suspension.

One reason to oppose Ray Knights parents claim is because the school does not have a

duty to supervise students unless they are on school grounds or under the control of the school.

For example, the in case of Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, a seventh grade student,

Todd Glaser, was chased off school grounds before school by another student and was injured

after being struck by a passing car in the public street. Todd Glasers parents sued the school

district for negligence because they failed to supervise Todd before school. In this case, the state
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 4

supreme court ruled, A school district is under no duty to supervise or protect students who are

not in its custody or control, unless it has assumed the duty to do so by an affirmative act or

promise (Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District). Likewise, in Ray Knights case, Rays

accidental shooting happened outside of the school grounds and out of the schools control.

Thus, the school did not have a duty to supervise Ray because his injury did not occur on school

grounds.

Another case that opposes Ray Knights parents negligence claim is the case of Joseph

Jerkins v. Soweto Anderson. In this case, a student named Joseph Jerkins was released from

school early on a half day and did not inform his parents who usually picked him up from school.

While Joseph was walking home alone, he was hit by a car at an intersection and suffered severe

injuries making him a quadriplegic. His father and brother sued the school for negligence

because the school failed to provide him with written notification of the school calendar and

failed to inform his family that Joseph would be getting out of school early due to a half day on

the day of his accident. In this case, the court ruled that the school district did not have a duty of

care to protect Joseph after school hours and his injury did not occur on school grounds (Joseph

Jerkins v. Soweto Anderson). As in the case of Ray Knight, the injury sustained from the

gunshot wound happened outside of school grounds and during his suspension while he was not

under the schools control. All in all, the school district would not be held liable for Ray

Knights injuries that occurred away from school.

In summary, the court would rule in favor of Ray Knight and his parents lawsuit,

holding the school officials liable for the injuries he sustained. The case of D.C. v. St. Landry

Parish School Board supports the notion that a school has a duty of care to its students, and that

failure to call parents and provide written notification prior to a student being placed on
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 5

suspension is a breach of duty. Also, the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery

County supports Ray Knights parents claim because school personnel have a duty to protect

students from injury by following school guidelines and properly informing Rays parents of his

suspension. Therefore, the school would be found guilty of negligence and required to pay for

the liability damages Ray sustained from being shot while on suspension from school.
Ch. 6 and 10 Assignment 6

References

D.C. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BD. | 802 So.2d 19 (2001).

Retrieved February 05, 2017, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819/D.C.%20v.%20ST.%20LAN

DRY%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.#

EISEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION | 324 Md. 376 (1991). (1991, October 29). Retrieved

February 05, 2017, from

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324Md376_1672/EISEL%20v.%20BOARD%2

0OF%20EDUCATION

JOSEPH JERKINS v. SOWETO ANDERSON, Retrieved February 05, 2017, from

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/appellate-division-unpublished/2006/a1575-04-

opn.html

84726 -- Glaser v. Emporia USD No. 253 -- Allegrucci, J. -- Kansas Supreme Court.

Retrieved February 05, 2017, from

http://www.kscourts.org/Cases-and-Opinions/opinions/supct/2001/20010420/84726.htm