PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 1

Portfolio Artifact #3

Matt Clough

EDU 210

10/26/19
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 2

Ray Knight is a middle school student who was suspended for three days because of his

unexcused absences. Normal procedures required by school districts is to notify the parents by

telephone and a written notice by mail but the school only sent a notice with the student, which

never made it to the parents. Ray’s parents were not aware that he was suspended from the

school and was shot during the first day of his suspension while visiting a friend. There are

arguments in defense of the school as well as against it.

The first side of the argument is that Ray’s parents DO have defensible grounds for

liability charges against the school. Negligence is the most obvious charge that Ray’s parents

have against the school. Negligence must include each of its 4 elements; Duty, Breach,

Causation, and Injury. In this case, The school has a required duty to inform the parents of the

suspended students of his suspension so that he is accounted for. Because they skipped the step

of informing the parents, they breached their duty but not taking reasonable steps to carry out

their duty. Since the school failed to inform the parents as part of their duty, the parents were

unaware of their sons suspension and was at the location where he was injured, this is causation.

Of course, Ray was injured when he was shot. In a court case involving a similar charge of

negligence, ​Mastrangelo v. West Side Union High School ​( Supreme Court of California

February 1935)​, ​the Supreme Court of California also recognized the 4 elements of negligence

when a student was injured in a chemistry experiment that ended in an explosion. In both cases,

staff of the school failed to meet safety requirements and breached procedures that both ended in

injury. (FindLaw's Supreme Court of California case and opinions.)

Another case in favor of charges of negligence against the school is ​Munn v. Hotchkiss

School​ (United States Court of Appeals August, 2015), where a student was bitten by a tick and
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 3

contracted a disease while on a field trip, off campus. U.S. Court of Appeals ruled that even

though the incident happened off school property and was not a “common” or foreseeable

outcome, the school was still responsible for not taking actions to prevent it from occurring, in

this case providing insect repellent, and was found negligent (Goldberg & Zipursky, "A School's

Duty of Care to its Students: Munn v. Hotchkiss School - Goldberg & Zipursky", 2015). This

relates to our case because our student was injured off of school property, was not a

“foreseeable” outcome, and the school failed to make any action to prevent it per their duties and

procedures.

Now for the other side of the argument, the school SHOULD NOT be charged with

negligence. There are a few cases where some of the previously stated cases could have been

reversed. In the case ​Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist.​ (Supreme Court of California,

October, 1978), a student left the school grounds and was injured by a motorist. In this particular

case, the Supreme Court of California ruled that the school was negligent… BUT in their

conclusion they stated the school was only considered negligent because of their failure to

exercise due care while the student was in supervision of the school while on the premises. They

also stated that “In all other respects, the judgement would be reversed.” (J, "Hoyem v.

Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist."). The school could argue that since Ray was never on the

school premises during the first day of his suspension, that they would not be reliable for his

injuries.

In the final court case that supports the school in this argument, ​Connet v. Fremont

County Sch. Dist. ​(Supreme Court of Wyoming July, 1978)​ ​involved a student who lit himself on

fire with alcohol when the teacher was in the room next door. The Supreme Court of Wyoming
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 4

ruled that it is not feasible for the school to provide constant supervision of each individual

student at all times, but more importantly, stated that the court and jury must decide if the student

would have made the same decision that led to the incident or if the incident would have still

occurred regardless of supervision (ROSE, "Browse cases", 1978). The school could argue that,

because of Ray’s unexcused absences that he was suspended for in the first place, was likely to

visit his friend even if his parents were notified in advance. They could argue that the incident

would have happened regardless.

Based on the court cases used and the scenario itself, I believe that the school should be

held responsible for Ray’s injuries and charged with negligence. Both the court case

Mastrangelo v. West Side Union High School ​( Supreme Court of California February 1935), and

Munn v. Hotchkiss School​ (United States Court of Appeals August, 2015) provide excellent

examples of schools being charged with negligence. Both are fairly similar to our incident and

all share the 4 needed elements of negligence. While some of the cases in defense of the school

are strong, their reasons where specific and unique when it came to their decisions. Thus, the

school should be found negligent.

PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 5

References

Mastrangelo v. West Side Union High School ​( Supreme Court of California February

1935): FindLaw's Supreme Court of California case and opinions. (n.d.).

Retrieved from ​https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-supreme-court/1779651.html#​.

Munn v. Hotchkiss School​ (United States Court of Appeals August, 2015): Goldberg, J. P., &

Zipursky, B. C. (2015, August 31). A School's Duty of Care to its Students: Munn v.

Hotchkiss School - Goldberg & Zipursky. Retrieved October 26, 2019, from

https://blogs.harvard.edu/nplblog/2015/08/26/a-schools-duty-of-care-to-its-students-mun

n-v-hotchkiss-school-goldberg-zipursky/.

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist.​ (Supreme Court of California, October, 1978): J, T.

(n.d.). Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. Retrieved October 26, 2019, from

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/22/508.html​.

Connet v. Fremont County Sch. Dist. ​(Supreme Court of Wyoming July, 1978): ROSE, J. (1978,

July 11). Browse cases. Retrieved from

https://casetext.com/case/connett-v-fremont-cty-sch-dist-etc.
PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 6