You are on page 1of 5



Who is held responsible if a student gets injured during school hours outside of the

school premise? Ray Knight was suspended from his middle school, and on the first day of

suspension, he went to a friend's house where he was accidentally shot. The school did send a

notification of the suspension with the student but did not have a required telephone notification.

The student threw away the written notification to the parents were not aware of the suspension.

The case of Jerkins v Board of Education of Pleasantville can help the case of the parents

in holding the school accountable. In the case of jerkins v Pleasantville, a young boy was

involved in an accident on his way home. The boy was dismissed early because the school had

an early-dismissal day. The parents were unaware of the dismissal time, so there was no adult

supervision to walk him home. The parents sued the school district on the grounds of "school

district and principal breached their duty of reasonable supervision with respect to [the

students]dismissal from school. In both cases, the parents are unaware of the schools reasoning

as to why their children are not at the school like they should be. In both cases, the parents were

not correctly notified like they should have been resulting in the injury of both students. In the

case of Ray Knight, the school may be held responsible because the suspension procedures were

not followed.

Hoyem v Manhattan Beach City School District is another case that can help the parents

case. This case was to determine a school's negligent supervision after their student was injured

during school hours. The student snuck out of school and on his way to an undisclosed location

he was involved in a motorcycle accident. The family of Michael Hoyem sued the school district

for negligent supervision. During the trial, it was found that "a school district may be held liable

for a student's injuries which are proximately caused by the district's failure to exercise
reasonable care under the circumstances." We Can relate this to the case of Mr. Knight because

there was no form of communication between the parent and the school were the supervision of

the student was passed from one source to the other. Since the parents did not know about the

suspension, the school was still responsible for the student.

The case of Kerwin v County of San Mateo can help the schools side of the argument.

This case states that the school district is only responsible for a student outside of the school, and

is only responsible if it involves school transportation. For example, after school is released, Tim

uses the school district's school bus to get home. On their route home, Tim is injured. The school

would be responsible because the Tim was injured outside of school hours while using the school

district's transportation. However, in the case of Ray Knight, he was not using the school

district's transportation. Therefore the school is not responsible for what happens to him outside

of school.

Another case that can be used as evidence to show that Ray's parents do not have

defensible grounds to pursue liability charges would be Glaser v Emporia Unified School

District. In this case, a student was injured when he was hit by a car on the public street in front

of the school. Before the incident, the student was in the school building, but for some reason, he

did step out onto the street where he was injured. The school district noted that they"[do] not

exercise supervision before school until student [are] in the building." Due to the circumstances

that the incident occurred outside of the school property and in a public street, the school district

did not owe a duty to Glaser.

After reading both the case and the pros and cons, I believe Ray's parents have defensible

grounds to pursue liability charges against the school. The school did not follow the suspension

procedures as they should have. Their only notice was a written notification which was thrown

away by the student. With the help of the case of Jerkins v Anderson, we can see that the school

did not correctly notify the parents. The school was still responsible for the student because no

formality switched over the responsibility to the parents.


Jerkins Ex Rel. Jerkins​ v. ​Anderson, 922 A.2d 1279 (N.J. 2007)

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. , 22 Cal.3d 508(1978)

Kerwin v. County of San Mateo,​ 18106. First Dist., Div. One. (1959)

G​laser v. Emporia Unified School District Number, Kansas Supreme Court

21 P. 3d 573 (2001)