Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Lea Martinez
Dr. Warby
EDU 210
A middle school student named Ray Knight was suspended from his school because of
unexcused absences. The school districts are required to send a written notification and a
telephone notification to the parents. Unfortunately, the school decided to send a note home with
the student, and it was thrown away. The parents were unaware that their son was suspended
from school. The first day that Ray Knight was suspended he was accidentally shot while he
visited a friend. As a result of their son being shot, the parents want to pursue liability charges
against school officials. Do the parents have the right to pursue charges?
Ray’s parents feel they have the right to sue based on the school districts negligence of
not following school procedures. They believed that if the school district had followed school
procedures, the accident could have been avoided. According to Underwood and Webb, (2006)
“Four elements of negligence must be established for a plaintiff to win in a negligence lawsuit:
duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury” (p. 100). In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education
of Montgomery County, a student made suicidal statements to both students and school
counselors. The two school counselors were found to be negligent because they failed to
Montgomery County 584 A.2d 64 (1991). The school district also failed to notify Ray’s parents
Another case that would support the parent’s argument is Jerkins v. Anderson. In this
case, a nine-year-old boy named Joseph Jerkins was struck by a car after having an early
dismissal day from school. As a result, Joseph was paralyzed from neck down. The parents
claimed that because they did not know about the early dismissal they made no arrangements to
have someone pick up their son from school. They stated, “they were not made aware of the
KNIGHT V BOARD OF EDUCATION 3
early-dismissal days, including June 15, through any school communication” (Jerkins v.
Anderson 922 A.2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285). The parents of Ray Knight were also not
The school board will argue that they should not be held responsible for injuries that
occurred off campus and by a third party. In the case of Davis v. Mangelsdorf, Davis was in an
automobile accident, and she wanted to recover from personal injuries that she received from
William Smith, a driver that lost control of his vehicle because of an epileptic seizure. Davis
took legal action against the drivers former physician, Dr. Mangelsdorf, stating that the physician
was negligent when he told Smith that he could stop taking Dilantin and failing to inform him of
the dangers when discontinuing the drug (Davis V. Mangelsdorf 138 Ariz. 207, 208, 673 P.2d
951, 952 (App. 1983). The court ruled in favor of Dr. Mangelsdorf because he was no longer
Another case the school board could use to argue their point is Collette v. Tolleson
Unified School District. This case involved an automobile accident that occurred off campus.
Thomason, went off campus with some friends to go to the mall during lunch break. On the way
back to the school, Thomason lost control of his vehicle hitting Scofield’s car. An officer
estimated that Thomason was driving at seventy-two miles per hour. The plaintiff argued that
the school was negligent and failed to enforce their closed-campus policy. The school claimed
that they were not negligent and that they are not responsible for injuries or accidents occurring
off campus during lunchtime (Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No. 214, 203 Ariz.
359, 362 (App. 2002). The court ruled in the school district’s favor.
In the case involving Ray Knight, I believe the court will rule in Ray’s favor. The school
officials did not follow proper procedures to notify the parents of an upcoming suspension
KNIGHT V BOARD OF EDUCATION 4
involving their and therefore breached their duty. In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of
Mongomery County, the school never notified the parents of their child’s suicidal statements
(Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County 584 A.2d 64 (1991). They had the duty to
have the parents aware of what their child was saying just like the school officials had the duty to
inform Ray’s parents that he had a suspension. Also the case of Jerkins v. Anderson, the school
did not remind or inform the parents of Joseph Jerkins that there was an early dismissal day on
June 15. The court said, “Schools have a duty to exercise reasonable care for supervising
students safety at dismissal (Jerkins v. Anderson 922 A. 2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285). Based on
the court cases the school district failed in its duty to follow school procedures, and that led to
References
Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No. 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362 (App 2002).
Davis v. Mangelsdorf 138 Ariz. 207, 208 673 P.2d 951, 952 (App. 1983)
Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and Applications.