Running head: WHO WILL WIN DEATH; SCHOOL OR PARENTS 1

Ray Knight Case

Jose Chaidez

College of Southern Nevada

 WHO WILL WIN DEATH; SCHOOL OR PARENTS 2

Who is to be blame for death; the killer or bullet? There is an interesting case where a

middle school decided to suspend a student named Ray Knight for three days due to the

accumulation of unexcused absences. The school districts required procedures for school to

follow when dealing with suspensions. The school where Knight was attending was supposed to

make a telephone notification to his parents or guardians and followed with a letter notification

through mail. However, the middle school decided to write a letter to Knight’s parents or

guardians and sent it through the student. Knight decided to throw away the letter and the parents

were unaware of the suspension from school. An outcome happened where the student Knight

was accidentally shot on his first day of suspension as he was visiting a friend’s house. Are the

parents fully supported by laws to sue the school or is the school braced by laws?

First case that backs up Knight’s parents is Goss v. Lopez 419 U.S 565 (1975). In the

case, ten students were suspended for ten days due to misconduct. The school principal decided

to suspend the students without following the procedures from the school district. Same actions

were done to Ray Knight; the student was suspended without following the school district

procedures. The Supreme Court decided that a public school must allow the students to a hearing

before making the suspension. Also, a suspension without a hearing violates the Due Process

Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the US Constitution. It was also stated by the court that

if the students were to be expelled from school, they can be entitled to appeal to the Board of

Education. However, Knight did not have the chance to appeal because the school violated his

Due Process Clause of the Fourteen Amendment. With the violation from the school, Knight’s

parents can have a solid ground to fight a case.

 WHO WILL WIN DEATH; SCHOOL OR PARENTS 3

Another case that provides support to Knight’s parents against the school is the

Wagenblast v. Odessa School District (1988). In the case, parents of students’ athletes were

fighting against the school for making them sign standardized form where it releases the school

district from liability resulting from any ordinary negligence in the interscholastic activities. The

court stated that the standardized form violated public policies. In other words, the school was

trying to allow students to participate in sports where there can be physical injuries, but the

school was not going to be responsible for any injuries caused to the students. However, the

court determined that those sports happened because they are options provided from the school.

The school was trying to curve out of their duties in such sports for their athlete students. This

case proves that schools have responsibilities and negligence towards their students. Therefore,

the school was responsible for the safety of Knight as he was suspended. The school had the

public policies to foresee liability on Knight. The school had the responsibility of reasonable care

for Knight.

Now we move to a case that supports the school’s side with the case of Barnett et al. v.

Caldwell (2018). In the case, a High School student named Antoine Williams died in class for

playing around with a classmate where he falls, and his classmate landed on top of him while the

instructor was in the restroom. Williams’ parents filed a complaint against the instructor under

the name of Appellee Phyllis Caldwell for being accused to be responsible of Williams’ death.

The parents stated that Caldwell was being negligent of supervising her classroom when

Williams’ death occurred. The Trial Court and Court of Appeals agreed Caldwell was entitled to

official immunity because her acts were the product of discretionary decisions concerning the

supervision of students. Also, the Supreme Court concluded that the supervision of the students

does not mean to be physically there, and the court could not conclude if Ms. Caldwell made a
 WHO WILL WIN DEATH; SCHOOL OR PARENTS 4

poor decision or not at the time she decided to leave to the restroom, which concluded as to

entitled her to office immunity. Instructor Caldwell did not intend to injure Williams and she

asked the next-door instructor to listen for the class as she was going to the restroom and that

applies to supervision in school district.

A second case that supports the school’s side is the Cinthia S. Murillo v. Kevin Michael

Haff (2015). In this case, a student went to Godfrey-Lee High School intending to fight another

student after school hours. One instructor was told about the fight by another school employee.

The instructor plus another three teachers went to the place where the two students were fighting.

Two teachers stopped the two female students fighting by restraining them and one instructor

asked one of the female students if she was fined and she replied “yes.” The instructor followed

by letting her go and the female student decided to fight again the other female student who was

still being restrained by the other teacher. When the instructors tried to break up the fight, the

right arm from the plaintiff broke. On September 26, 2013, the plaintiff sued the defendant under

two accusations; negligence, battery and assault. The defendant stated that he was immune from

liability under MCL 380.1312 and MCL 691.1407 and the court granted his motion. The court

stated that the plaintiff did not prove that the defendant owed a duty of care, that the defendant

breached this duty, and that this breached caused the injury. Also, the court stated that a public-

school employee may use reasonable physical force to upon pupils with the purpose to maintain

order and control. This case proves that Knight was out of reach for an instructor or a school

employee to have responsibility of his safety. Haff and other instructors stopped the fight even

after school hours and broke the female arm and still was granted immune from liability. Knight

was not in school went the death happened, therefore the school has immune liability from his

death.
 WHO WILL WIN DEATH; SCHOOL OR PARENTS 5

Therefore, I think Ray Knight death was not under the responsibility from the school. My

decision is supported by the case of Barnett et al. v. Caldwell (2018). When Williams died inside

the classroom from playing around with his classmates landing on top of him and the instructor

happened to go be at the restroom, she was still protected with office immunity. The

discretionary act was the key to the protection of Caldwell. Knight was not intentionally injured

or killed. Knight was accidentally shot and therefore died. Also, the parents should had paid

more attention to Knight’s education. The school did not have bad malice towards Knight.

However, the school did not follow the procedure from the school district which makes it hard to

fully blame the parents. Something important to have in mind is that teachers are to educate the

students, but parents are to take care of them. Whenever is possible and it can be reach; teachers

have to protect students from danger. But, Ray Knight was out of reach at his friend’s house

when he was accidentally shot.

 WHO WILL WIN DEATH; SCHOOL OR PARENTS 6

References

Barnett v. Caldwell 809 S.E.2d 813 (2018)

Cinthia S. Murillo v. Kevin Michael Haff F., MI (2015).

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

Wagenblast v. Odessa School District 110 Wn.2d 845 (1988)