SCHOOL NEGLIGENCE 1

Who is to Blame: Schools or Students

Nick M. Bones

College of Southern Nevada

SCHOOL NEGLIGENCE 2

When schools take on the responsibility of watching over such a slew of students day in

and day out there is a massive sense of duty that comes along with it. But where does that duty

end, and when does the fault fall back onto the shoulders of the parents, or the students? In the

case of Ray Knight who is at responsible? Ray Knight is a middle school student whose life was

cut short because of a series of mistakes which ultimately led to his demise. Ray was absent from

school too often and received a suspension from school because of it. The parents of Ray were

never notified of his suspension, even though it is required that the school district inform his

parents both by phone and notice by mail. Ray’s notice was given to him to directly which he

promptly threw away. While he was under his suspension, he was accidentally shot during his

visit with a friend. Rays parents are suing the school officials for breach of duty, by not giving

them proper notification.

Cases like this are not entirely unheard of in the teaching or school community. There are

cases throughout history of schools being held to blame for accidents happening to the students.

In a case that deals with something like Ray’s case, there was a boy on a field trip to a zoo in

1998. In the case Thomas v City Lights School Inc., (2001) a boy got pulled aside, beaten and

assaulted by five other boys without any intervening from any teachers or chaperons. The boy in

question ended up suffering a concussion as well as multiple other injuries. The plaintiff claimed

that had there been more supervision this would have never occurred. In this instance, it was the

plaintiff was found to be correct, and the school was, in fact, negligent of their duty to keep the

students safe.

Another case quite akin to the case of Ray’s is a case from 2001, which a student signed

herself out of school and got attacked on the way home. In the case of D.C. v. St. Landry Parish

School board (2001) K.C. the student was sent to the office because of a dress code violation
SCHOOL NEGLIGENCE 3

(her skirt was too short.) K.C. then called home in an attempt to have someone bring her a skirt

that was of appropriate length. However, when nobody was able to bring her what she needed,

she informed the office secretary of her predicament the secretary allowed her to sign herself out

and go home to change, which is not permitted. On her walk to her house from school, she was

abducted and sexually assaulted. The courts found that since she signed herself out of school

without the permission of a custodian, it was during school hours, and in an area that was known

to be unsafe that the school was to blame for any and all incidents that happened to K.C. during

that time.

The schools and school boards are not responsible for every instance that can occur while

in a school situation, though. In some cases, the teachers can do everything in their power to

keep kids safe, and accidents may still happen. For Instance, In the case Dailey v. Los Angeles

Unified School District (1970) There was a 16-year-old boy who was killed on a playground

while “slap boxing” with some of his friends—while playing he lost his footing and struck his

head on the ground which led to the student’s death. This incident occurred after a lunch period

during some free time that the students had before the next class. There was a teacher nearby in

his office, but he heard no disturbance that would arise suspicion as to any wrongdoing. So, it the

courts determined that the school showed no sign of neglect of their duty as teachers. This case is

similar to Ray’s because if the teacher had been on site instead of his office the students would

not have been playing so roughly and maybe the incident could have been avoided. However, the

courts felt that this could have occurred anywhere, and it was a freak accident that couldn’t have

been avoided so the teacher on duty was not to blame.

Another case, Glasser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001), the courts had to

determine whether the school district was to blame when a student got struck by a car before
SCHOOL NEGLIGENCE 4

school started. In this case, the student was on his way walking to school like he regularly did, he

got to school, and then left to do something then he was struck by an automobile. The claim was

that because he was on school grounds then left school grounds that he was the responsibility of

the school. The courts determined that the school district held no blame for the injuries to

Glasser because it was before school started. They stated that since the incident was before any

classes had started that he was technically not yet under the supervision of the school. The ruling

of a case like this is also similar to Ray’s suspension because as far as the school knew, Ray was

under the direction of his parents.

So, the question remains, who was responsible for Ray the day that he passed away? I

believe that the school officials would be found accountable because they had a responsibility to

contact Ray’s parents to notify them that he was suspended. The policy of a required telephone

notification was in place for a reason, because it is not the student's job to inform the parents of

his punishment. If the school had either made the phone call or mailed the notice, then the cause

of the incident would no longer have been laid on the school district. But since neither act was

taken, then that was a breach of duty on behalf of the school, and it stands to reason that the

blame is entirely upon the school.

SCHOOL NEGLIGENCE 5

References

Dailey v Los Angeles Unified School District, 2 Cal.3d 745 (1970)

D.C. v. St. Laundry Parish School Board, 802 So.2d 19 (La. App 2001)

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District No. 253, 21 P.3d 573 (Kan. 2001)

Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc,. 124 F. Supp.2d 707 (D.D.C. 2000)