Running head: ARTIFACT 3

EDU 210 CH.6 and CH. 10 Portfolio Artifact #3

Ryan Moore
College of Southern Nevada

ARTIFACT 3

2
Chapter 6 and Chapter 10 Portfolio Artifact #3

Ray Knight, while visiting a friends housing during his first day of suspension, was
accidentally shot. Knight was suspended due to unexcused absences. Contrary to the school
districts procedures, the parents were not notified by telephone or a prompt written notice. The
only notice was sent to the student, who through the notice away. The parents, who were
unaware of their childs suspension, now pursue liability charges against the school officials.
When Ray Knight started towards his friends house on the day of his suspension, there are
no means to prove that the likeliness of the incident was increased due to the students
suspension. A similar ruling can be found in the case Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District.
In this case a student who left school without the schools permission or knowledge caused an
automobile accident. The court ruled that the student leaving did not increase the ordinary,
everyday risk of automobile accidents. This is much like the risk of being accidentally shot. The
risk does not increase or decrease based of the suspension of a student.
In Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District the court failed to hold the school
district liable for a gang-related shooting that happened off school. Even though the incident
resulted in the death of a student, the same ruling applies to Ray Knight. In these cases, the
action of the school does not increase or decrease the risk of unforeseeable death. The courts
ruling in the Brownell case stated that school had taken reasonable precautions to reduce the
amount of gang violence. It is not stated whether the death of Ray Knight was gang related,
however, the school has very little control over the everyday violences that happen off campus.
Although it can be argued that the schools action to suspend Ray had no influence on the
accidental shooting of the student, it can still be very easily argued that the school officials had
failed multiple duties. Failing a duty as a school official is one of four elements of negligence

ARTIFACT 3

that must be established for a plaintiff to win a negligence lawsuit. The officials failed the duty
to adequately supervise students; by not making sure the parents received notice of the childs
suspension. In failing this duty, the school also failed the duty to hire and retain qualified and
competent staff. Any competent employee of a school would know to properly inform the parents
or guardians of a suspended student. The ruling of the case Johnson v. School District of Millard
found a school official guilty of failing their duty to protect the students when a child was hurt
playing London Bridges. Teachers have duty to protect the students, and part of that duty is
ensuring the parents of a suspended student know when the student is suspended. Not notifying
the parents is the simple act of a teacher failing to watch over their students.
The age of the student must also be taken into account. Depending on the age, releasing a
student without notifying parents may be less of an offense than others. Since Ray Knight was a
middle school student ranging from age 10-13, releasing him without notifying his parents was
obviously the teacher failing their duty to look after the students. In Eisle v. Board of Education
of Montgomery two counselors were found negligent in not informing parents of their childs
suicidal statements. These counselors, much like the officials who failed to inform Knights
parents of their childs suspension, failed to follow their duty as school employees to look after
the students.

ARTIFACT 3

Given the ruling of pervious court cases, and the textbooks chapter on negligence, the
parents of Ray Knight have just enough means to take the officials to court. Through the schools
failure to watch over the student, by not following the school districts procedures in informing
the parents, they are to be held liable for the death of Ray. Had the parents been properly
informed of the students suspension, Ray probably would not have been visiting a friends house,
therefore he would still be alive.

References

Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District: Hearing before the Superior Court of the Los
Angeles County. (1992).
Dean Webb, L., & Underwood, J. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle River, NJ:
Pearson.
Johnsonv.SchoolDistrictofMillard:HearingbeforetheNebraskaSupremeCourt(1998).