You are on page 1of 4

Portfolio Artifact #3

Tort and Liability

Madison Evans

Edu 210

Dr. Dale B. Warby

9/24/18
Student Ray Knight was suspended from school for excessive unexcused absences. The

school district required that the school sends a written notice to the parents, and a phone call to

notify the parents. However, the school only sent Ray Knight home with a letter, which he threw

away before showing his parents. During his suspension, Ray Knight was shot at a friends house.

The court cases that support the school’s side are Commonwealth v. Kerstetter (2014) and Goss

v. Lopez (1975). The court cases that support the parent’s rights to pursue liability charges are

Troxel v. Granville (2000) and Appellees v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (2013).

In the Commonwealth v. Kerstetter (2014) case, a mother was charged with truancy

because her five-year-old daughters had excessive unexcused absences. She argued that

compulsory school age is between 8 and 17, so she cannot be charged for truancy. The court held

that compulsory attendance is required for students between 8 and 17 (FindLaw). This case

shows that the school was allowed to suspend Ray Knight for excessive unexcused absences

because he was in middle school.

In the Goss v. Lopez (1975) case, students were suspended without due process from the

school. The court ruled that students have the right to a written notice of suspension and due

process (FindLaw). Since the decisions of the Supreme Court are the “law of the land”, a written

notice would be sufficient protocol after the suspension of Ray Knight.

In the Troxel v. Granville (2000) case, Troxel wanted the court to grant visitation days

with his grandchildren. The parent of the children, Granville, did not oppose; however, the courts

granted the grandparent more days than the parent wanted. Granville opposed the visitation days,

and the courts ruled that the parents have the right to oversee the upbringing and care of their

child. This court case shows that the parents have the right to know what is happening with their
children (JUSTIA). The school did not effectively notify Ray Knight’s parents of his suspension,

which violates their rights as parents.

In the Appellees v. Cedar Rapids Community School District (2013) case, Mitchell sued

the school district when her daughter was sexually assaulted by another student after school

hours off campus. The school failed to notify Mitchell within a timely manner that her daughter

left school during school hours. The jury ruled that the school failed to adequately supervise the

special education student (FindLaw). Since the school did not effectively notify Ray Knight’s

parents that he would not be attending school, the school would be responsible for what happens

off campus.

The court will likely rule in favor of the parents of Ray Knight. The school infringed on

the parents’ rights by not adequately informing them of Knight’s situation. The parents were

unaware that their child would not be attending school. If they had known, the shooting could

have been prevented. The school also did not meet their district standards for informing parents

of a suspension. Schools are required to follow the rules set by the school district.
References

FindLaw. (n.d.). Commonwealth of Pennsylvania, Appellee v. Jennifer Ann Kerstetter, Appellant.

Retrieved September 21, 2018, from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/pa-supreme-

court/1670075.html

FindLaw. (n.d.). Goss V. Lopez, (1975). Retrieved September 21, 2018, from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-supreme-court/419/565.html

FindLaw. (n.d.). Leeann Mitchell, Individually, and on Behalf of D.E., her Minor Child, Appellees,

v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, Appellant. Retrieved September 21, 2018, from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-court/1635949.html

JUSTIA. (n.d.). Troxel v. Granville, 530 U.S. 57 (2000). Retrieved September 21, 2018, from

https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/530/57/

You might also like