Running header: Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3) 1

Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3)

Andrew Minear

EDU 210

Professor Warby
Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3) 2

Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3)

A middle school student by the name of Ray Knight was put on suspension from school

for three days because he had too many unexcused absences. The school district requires for the

parents of the student, that is to be suspended, to be notified by phone and a written notice

through mail; however, Knight’s school only sent him a notice which he threw away. Ray’s

parents were never informed about their son’s suspension. On his first day of suspension, Ray

was mistakenly shot while at a friend’s house. The question here is whether Ray’s parents have a

justifiable cause to charge school officials with liability charges. To determine if Ray’s parents

can place liability charges against Ray’s school officials, it is important to first examine if Ray’s

injury was a result of the school’s negligence.

The four parts of negligence are: duty, breach, causation, and injury, and all of these

being infringed will give the plaintiff a greater chance to win the lawsuit. Duty is the practical

requirement that all schools have since many individuals both young and old are on school

grounds. It is the school’s responsibility to govern a safe environment and to establish a standard

care for all students to prevent unreasonable risks. When a school fails to uphold regulation that

protects students from injury, it is called a breach of duty. In Ray’s case, the school neglected to

follow the requirement to notify Ray’s parents about his suspension; therefore, the school

officials had breached their duty to ensure Ray’s suspension was made aware, ultimately failing

to make his suspension secure. Causation is the association between the school’s act of

negligence, the cause, and the injury, the effect. And injury is simply the proof of a harm done to

the student. In Bellman v. San Francisco H.S. Dist., the court ruled, “Contrary to the rule of the

common law, the legislature…has declared that school boards shall be ‘liable as such in the

name of the district for any judgement against the district on account of injury to any pupil
Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3) 3

because of the negligence of the district or its officers or employees’.” (July 26, 1938). Ray’s

school had control over the suspension and if his parents would have been notified, his injury

could have been prevented. Also, in Bellman v. San Francisco H.S. Dist., legislature was

established that “made school districts responsible for the injury resulting from the failure of

their officers…to use ordinary care.” (July 26, 1938). Ray’s school officials failed to use

ordinary care when they had ignored the requirement to inform his parents by phone and mail.

The reason that Ray’s parents must first discover if they have defensible grounds to seek

liability charges on his middle school’s officials is that Ray’s injury resulted off school grounds.

In the text, School Law for Teachers: concepts and applications it states that “The state supreme

court ruled that the school district was not liable for the student’s injuries…who was not in the

school building and therefore, not in the school’s custody…” (pp. 101). It is the school’s duty to

supervise and protect students only when they are under the school’s control; however, injuries

can derive because of a school’s lack of responsibility. The text also states that “Schools may

assume greater duties to supervise when they have, by their previous actions, assumed the duty

to supervise at a particular time” (pp. 101). It was Ray’s school official’s obligation to warn his

guardians of the suspension, so Ray’s parents could control and look after him during his three-

day termination. Since suspension removes a student from the care of the school, it is the

school’s duty to arrange that the suspension is supervised by the guardians of the student. In

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., the court concluded that “if plaintiffs can prove that

the pupil’s injury was proximately caused by the school district’s negligent supervision, the

district may be held liable for the resultant damages.” (Oct. 25, 1978). In this case, a 10-year-old

boy, Michael Hoyem, had left school grounds and had been terribly injured when hit by a

motorcycle in a public intersection. Hoyem was injured off school grounds just like Ray Knight
Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3) 4

was, however, unlike Ray, Hoyem’s injuries were not due to the school’s negligence, but due to

unfortunate events. Hoyem’s school could not have prevented the motorcycle from hitting him

since he was off school grounds and was no longer under the school’s control. Ray Knight may

not have been under the school’s control, but his injury did result from the school’s negligence

because if his parents had known of his suspension they could have prevented him from being at

his friend’s house.

The given scenario does not give information about the damage Ray took from the

accidental shot and does not specify where his parents were at the time. The school did notify

Ray of his suspension and expected him to inform his parents on his own. Ray had been the one

to ignore telling his parents about his termination. In Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist.,

it also established that “school district bears a duty to supervise…on school premises…and may

be held liable for a student’s injuries…caused by district failure to exercise reasonable

care…Although a school district is not an insurer of its pupils’ safety” (Oct. 25, 1978). Since the

injury was inflicted upon Ray off school grounds, his school could not ensure his safety;

therefore, Ray’s parents would not have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges on his

school since it was not the school’s liability to protect him.

Courts will hold school districts accountable for a student’s injury when off school

grounds only if proof can be given that the cause was the school’s negligence and if school

officials could have prevented the injury. Ray’s school had no way of preventing the accidental

shot at his friend’s house because it was not a foreseen event. According to the class text, School

Law for Teachers: concepts and applications, “Courts have held schools liable for injuries

resulting from unsafe conditions that school officials knew or should have known about…Schools

cannot guarantee safety, but…provide a safe environment” (pp. 102). Ray’s middle school
Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3) 5

officials could not have guaranteed his safety off school grounds and since his injury was

accidental, the school could not have prevented it from happening. In Satariano v. Sleight, a 17-

year-old boy was hit by an automobile while crossing the street to get to the school gymnasium

and the court decided against him stating that his injury was due to his own negligence (Sept. 1,

1942). Both Satariano and Ray had contributed to their own injuries and the schools could not

have prevented them from happening. If Ray would have been shot on school grounds or if the

school officials were aware that his friend had a gun, then the school could have been held liable,

but in this case, it cannot.

After reviewing the court cases, the court would side with Ray’s parents because even

though the incident happened off school grounds, it could have been prevented if the school had

followed district procedure and notified his parents of the suspension. His parents would have

defensible grounds to place liability charges because the school officials had failed to give them

notice of his suspension; as a result, Ray was able to fool his parents into thinking he was still in

school and get away with being with his friend instead. The school may not have had liability to

protect Ray from being accidentally shot, but it was the school’s liability to inform the guardians

and return the supervision of Ray over to them.

Chapter 6 & 10 Assignment (Portfolio Artifact #3) 6

References

• Bellman v. San Francisco H. S. Dist., 11 Cal.2d 576 (July 26, 1938)

o Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library. (n.d.). Retrieved

February 12, 2018, from https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/bellman-v-

san-francisco-h-s-dist-28911

• Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and

applications. Ch.6 Negligence and Defamation in the School Setting. Upper

Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall. (pp. 100-103, 106)

• Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., 22 Cal.3d 508 (Oct. 25, 1978)

o Stanford Law School - Robert Crown Law Library. (n.d.). Retrieved

February 12, 2018, from https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/hoyem-v-

manhattan-beach-city-sch-dist-28098

• Satariano v. Sleight, 54 Cal. App. 2d 278 (Sept. 1, 1942)

o Satariano v. Sleight, 54 Cal. App. 2d 278 – CourtListener.com. (n.d.).

Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/1217309/satariano-v-sleight/