ARTIFACT 3 1

Artifact 3

Emily MacKinnon

EDU 214 – 2001

ARTIFACT 3 2

In this scenario, Ray Knight had missed too many school days without an excused

absence, and was therefore suspended. The school was supposed to follow certain procedures put

in place about notifying Ray's parents, but thought that sending Ray home with a note would

suffice; the note never made it to his parents. Ray threw the note away and his parents had no

idea that he was suspended from school. On his first-of-three day of suspension, Ray visited his

friend, but while visiting this friend, he was shot. Now his parents are seeking to pursue liability

charges against the school officials.

There are two courts cases exampling why the courts should rule in favor of the school

district. The first is Rogers By and Through Standley v. Retrum, in which a teacher's open class

policies allowed students to come on and off of campus whenever they pleased. During one class

period, after being publicly insulted and humiliated by his teacher, Kevin Rogers exited the

classroom and took to the highway with one of his friends, in his friend's car. Rogers's friend

Russo was driving at reckless speeds and there was a collision in which Rogers sustained

injuries. The courts found that while Retrum's open class policies had allowed Rogers to enter a

dangerous situation off campus, there was no way of predicting that he would get into Russo's

car or that Russo "would drive in a criminally reckless manner at 100 miles an hour so as to

cause an accident" (ROGERS BY AND THROUGH...). Based on the decision made in this case,

the court should decide in favor of the school district; there was no way that the school could

have known that Ray would go to his friend's house, nor that he would be put in that kind of

danger while there.

The second case is similar, in that it also involves an open class/campus policy and a

vehicular accident. This is the case of Tollenaar v. Chino Valley School District. The difference

in these cases is that the court ruled in favor of the school district because the Plaintiffs failed to
ARTIFACT 3 3

present sufficient evidence of the school subjecting their children to "an unreasonable risk of

harm" (FindLaw's Court of...). The school districts cannot control where students go when they

are not on campus, nor how safely they choose to act when not under the supervision of the

school.

However, based on the findings of the court in Jerkins v. Anderson, schools should

acknowledge that if students (especially elementary age) do not have proper supervision, then the

risk of harm coming to them increases. In this case, third-grader Joseph Jerkins was let out of

school on a half day, but his parents and siblings were unaware of the half day. On his walk

home, Joseph was hit by a car and paralyzed from the neck down; his older brother arrived at the

school at the normal pick-up time and was told about the half day, but it was too late and Joseph

had already left. Though the schools had shared the schedules for the year with the families, no

other notice was sent out aside from with the students, and Joseph failed to inform his family of

the half days. The court ruled in favor with the Jerkins.

The final court case that I present in favor of the court finding the school district guilty, is

that of Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc. In this case, Thomas was under the care and supposed

to be under the supervision of the school while on an off-campus field trip. However, during this

time, Thomas was physically abused by other students attending the field trip, and was suing the

school because this was a foreseeable event. City Lights School is one for at-risk youth, and

Thomas claimed that because of the nature of the students, the school had a responsibility to

Thomas. The court found in his favor, and based on the court's findings in this case, it should

vote in Ray Knight's favor as well.

Based on all of these findings, I think that the school will not be found guilty of

negligence because the outcome of Ray going to his friend's house was in no way foreseeable.
ARTIFACT 3 4

While I don't agree with the fact that the parents were not directly contacted in regards to his

suspension (or even beforehand, to find out why he was being late to school and classes), I do

not think that they should be held liable for Ray being shot while not on school premises.
ARTIFACT 3 5

References

THOMAS v. CITY LIGHTS SCHOOL, INC. | 124 F.Supp.2d 707 (2000). (2000, December
13). Retrieved June 26, 2017, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2000831124FSupp2d707_1767/THOMAS%20v.%20CI
TY%20LIGHTS%20SCHOOL,%20INC
FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved June 26, 2017, from
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1468267.html
Jerkins v. Anderson. (n.d.). Retrieved June 26, 2017, from
http://law.justia.com/cases/new-jersey/supreme-court/2007/a-49-06-doc.html
ROGERS BY AND THROUGH STANDLEY v. RETRUM | 170 Ariz. 399 (1991). (n.d.).
Retrieved June 26, 2017, from
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991569170Ariz399_1502.xml/ROGERS%20BY%20A
ND%20THROUGH%20STANDLEY%20v.%20RETRUM