Running Head: ARTIFACT #3 !

Artifact #3

Emily Williams

Dr. Warby

EDU 210

June 19, 2018

ARTIFACT #3 !2

In the given scenario a middle school student, Ray Knight, was suspended from school

for three days due to unexcused absences. The school's procedure of notification to the parents is

a telephone notification and a prompt written notice by mail to his parents. The school only sent

a notice home with the student. The student threw the notice away without showing his parents.

On the first day of Ray Knights suspension, he was shot while at a friend’s house. The following

are cases that both support the school and support the student.

The case of Goss v Lopez of 1975can be used to support Knight’s case. In Ohio, nine

students were suspended for misconduct without a hearing and the suspension was

unconstitutional. The court agreed that the appellees were denied their due process. Just as in the

case of Ray Knight, the student was not given his due process and the parents were not correctly

notified of the suspension, therefore the school is held liable for some if not all of the injuries

occurred.

Another case that is in favor with the parents of Ray Knight is Eisel v. The Board of

Education of Montgomery. In this case, a 13-year-old committed suicide in a suicide-murder pact

with another student. The father of this student sued the school and two of the counselors. The

student had a close relationship with the two school’s counselors and he believe that they should

have known about his daughter's suicidal thoughts. Therefore, they had a duty to inform the
ARTIFACT #3 !3

parents, which they did not do. Just like in the case of Ray Knight, the school did not follow the

proper proceedings, and due to the school's negligence, Ray Knight was shot.

Glaser v. Emporia, in this case, a student, Todd Glaser, left school grounds and ran into

the street while being chased by another student and collided with a vehicle. The incident

happened before the school had begun and during a period where students are not being

supervised by staff and teachers. The school cannot be held accountable if the incident was not

on school grounds or during the time in which students are being supervised. The same goes for

the Ray Knight case. The student's accident did not occur on school grounds nor did it happen

when the school was supposed to be supervising Ray Knight. Therefore, the school should not be

held accountable.

Jenkins vs The School Board of a third-grade student left school on an early dismissal

day and was struck by a car leaving him a quadriplegic. The family of the student filed a suit

stating that the school was negligent while claiming that they had no idea it was an early release

day even though the school sent out multiple notifications.

To summarize, I believe that the court would find the school negligent in this case. It was

the school's duty to properly notify the parents of Ray Knight of his suspension. In agreeance

with the discussed cases “Goss v Lopez” and “Eisel v. The Board of Education of Montgomery”;

“When there is a series of events leading up to an injury, the person starting that chain of events
ARTIFACT #3 !4

may be liable for the resultant injury if it was a foreseeable result of his

negligence” (Underwood, Webb, p 105). The school was the starting point in this injury when

they did not properly notify the parents of Ray Knight’s suspension. If they had done so, Ray

Knights might have never been when he was injured.

ARTIFACT #3 !5

References

Eisel v. The Board of Education of Montgomery 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991)

Glaser v. Emporia 21 P. 3d 573 (2001)

Goss v. Lopez, 419 U.S. 565 (1975)

Jerkins Ex Rel. Jerkins v Anderson, 922 A.2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285.

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. In School Law for Teachers (pp.

100,101,105). Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.