Artifact #3 Responsible for the Safety of the Students 1

Artifact #3School vs. Parents: Who’s Really Responsible for the Safety of the Students

Jennifer Ellis

College of Southern Nevada

November 18, 2018

Artifact #3 Responsible for the Safety of the Students 2

A middle school student named Ray Knight was suspended for three days due to

unexcused absences. The required district procedure is a telephone notification and a prompt

written notice by mail to his parents. The school only sent a note home with Ray, which he threw

away and did not tell his parents of his suspension. On his first day of suspension, Ray went to

visit a friend and was accidentally shot and killed.

The following case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County 597 A.2d 447

(Md. 1991), is a case that supports Ray Knight’s parents. In this case it was alleged that

classmates of a student informed counselors of the girl’s statements to commit suicide. The

counselors failed to report these statements to the girl’s parents or the proper authorities. The

girl’s father, Mr. Eisel, sued the district and the counselors stating that had the counselors

intervened her life could have been saved. The courts ruled in favor of the father, stating that the

counselors and the school board could have prevented her death had they taken proper

procedures. This case is an example of a breach of duty. A breach of duty is the failure to

exercise an appropriate standard of care (Underwood & Webb, 2006). This case helps the parents

of Ray Knight, as the school failed to follow procedure. Had the school alerted Ray’s parents of

his suspension, they could have prevented him from leaving his house. Ray’s lack of supervision

played a role in his death.

The second case that could be used in Ray Knight’s parents favor is Brahatcek v. Millard

School District, 202 Neb. 86, 273 N.W.2d 680 (1979), where a high school student was

accidentally struck by another student during a golf lesson in P.E. class, causing him to die. It

was discovered that the teacher did not follow the written rules of instruction. Had they done so

it would have been virtually impossible for two students to be on the mat at once. The court ruled
Artifact #3 Responsible for the Safety of the Students 3

in favor of the parents stating that the teacher’s negligence caused their son’s death. The school’s

failure to contact Ray’s parents in the required way is negligence. In turn, that negligence

contributed to his death.

Sanford vs. Stiles (2006), another unfortunate case involving student suicide, supports the

school district in not being held responsible for the death of Ray Knight. Ms. Sanford, the

mother, sued Ms. Stiles, the counselor, stating that her interactions with the student was part of

the reason he committed suicide. After a note written by the student saying a situation “almost

made me want to go kill myself” was given to Ms. Stiles, she called the student into her office to

talk. Ms. Stiles claims there were no indications of suicidal behavior, so she did not inform his

parents or anyone else. The courts ruled in favor of Ms. Stiles, stating that there was no

negligence on her part as she did not believe the student was in any risk. This is an example of an

assumption of risk, the idea that the plaintiff knowingly and voluntarily accepted the risks of an

activity (Underwood & Webb, 2006). Ray assumed the risk when he chose to go to his friend’s

house and play with a gun. He was old enough to know that guns can cause death. The district

did not know Ray would be in any danger off school property, therefore the responsibility falls

on Ray.

In the case of Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978) a ten year old student

left campus. As he crossed the street, he was struck by a motorcycle and severely injured. His

mother than sued the school claiming they were responsible for his injuries as they were not

providing proper supervision. The mother requested financial compensations for the boy’s

injuries and medical care. She also claimed she suffered emotional and physical injuries due to

seeing him in the hospital. The case was dismissed in Trial Court. The case of Hoyem v.

Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist supports the district because Ray was away from school and not
Artifact #3 Responsible for the Safety of the Students 4

meant to be at school that day. According to California Education Code 44807, “A teacher, vice

principal, principal, or any other certificated employee of a school district, shall not be subject to

criminal prosecution or criminal penalties for the exercise, during the performance of his duties”

The district had no duties to perform in this case as Ray was not under their care that day. Just

like Ms. Sanford’s son, Ray practiced contributory negligence, which is when the person

involved caused any or part of his own damages (Underwood & Webb, 2006). Ray shot himself,

no one in the district did. Ray should be held just as responsible as the school.

In this case Ray was a minor child who acted irresponsibly by throwing away the note

and not telling his parents of his suspension, but he is a child and that is to be expected. Also, he

was at his friend’s home without anyone knowing, another act of being irresponsible.

Nonetheless, the ultimate responsibility of his death falls on the school. They knew the proper

procedures and failed to follow them. Just like in the cases of Brahatcek v. Millard School

District, 202 Neb. 86, 273 N.W.2d 680 (1979) and Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery

County 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991) , had they followed written procedure a student’s life would

not have been at risk. Negligence is when someone acts unreasonably and as a result anther is

injured (Underwood & Webb, 2006). The school district neglected to provide proper care for

Ray Knight, making them responsible for his death.

Artifact #3 Responsible for the Safety of the Students 5

References

Brahatcek v. Millard School District, 202 Neb. 86, 273 N.W.2d 680 (1979) Retrieved
Nov. 15, 2018
http://cehdclass.gmu.edu/jkozlows/brahatck.htm

California Education Code Section 44807(2017) Retrieved Nov. 15, 2018

https://law.onecle.com/california/education/44807.html

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991) Retrieved Nov.
15, 2018
http://www.lawschoolcasebriefs.net/2013/02/eisel-v-board-of-education-of.html

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. , 22 Cal.3d 508 (1979) Retrieved Nov. 15, 2018
https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/hoyem-v-manhattan-beach-city-sch-dist-28098

Sanford vs. Stiles 04-4496(2006) Retrieved Nov. 15, 2018

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-3rd-circuit/1380734.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.