Running head: Tort and Liability 1
EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #3
Deisi Gonzalez
April 8, 2020
College of Southern Nevada
Tort and Liability 2
Ray Knight’s court case
A middle school student, Ray Knight, had a three-day suspension for a number of
unexcused absences. In these circumstances, school districts are required to notify parents or
guardians through telephone or a written notice by mail. However, the school only sent a notice
with the student, who threw it away. Ray’s parents were not aware that he was suspended. On the
first day of suspension, Ray was on his way to a friend’s house and got shoot.
In the case, Mitchel v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, a ninth-grade special
student at Cedar Rapids Community School District’s Kennedy High School was sexually
abused off school properties. The incident happened after D.E skipped her last period of class
and met her friend, M.F (the one who raped her) in the school parking lot and went to his house.
(Mitchel v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2013, No. 12-0794). The school did not
notify D. E’s absence after the school day had ended. This indicates that the school failed to
inform D. E’s mother, which caused her to think that D.E was still at school and lead to the
sexual assault. Similarly, in the case of Ray Knight, the school also fail to notify about the
student’s suspension, leading them to think that he was still at school. The incidence could have
been avoided if Ray’s parents could have been informed about his suspension so they could take
the measures necessaries to take care of him; preventing him of been in a place where he was not
supposed to be.
In the court case of Eisel v. Board of Education Montgomery (1991), school counselors
failed to inform a parent of a student’s suicidal comments. The court held that the counselors
were on charge to communicate such things to prevent suicide, “ the consequences of the risk is
so great that even a relatively remote possibility of a suicide may be enough to establish a duty” (
Eisel vs. Board of Education Montgomery County, 1991). In other words, the responsibility of
Tort and Liability 3
school’s counselors is to secure the student’s safety at the school and exercise reasonable care to
give parents a change to protect their children. This relates to the case of Ray Knight because
both cases have failed to follow the procedures in notifying parents to the well-being and safety
of the student.
On the other hand, in the case of Glaser vs. Emporia Unified School District (2001), a
middle school student in Emporia, Kansas was personal injure after he ran off school into a
public street. The student was injured in a collision with a car driven by Patricia Gould-Lipson.
However, the court held that schools are not in charge for the supervision of the students outside
school properties, “ the school district does not exercise supervision before school until a student
in in the building” ( Glaser vs. Emporia Unified School District, 2001). In other words, the
school is not responsible for what happens out of school properties. In the case of Ray Knight,
the incident happened out of the school territory, which could indicate that the school was not
responsible for that because the school have already filed a suspension and Ray was excused
from all his classes. Which means that the school should not be held for what happened to Ray
until he was back to school.
In the case Andreozzi v. Town of East 2014, the court administered that the school was
not held responsible for the harm that one of the track members had. The student chose to engage
in the Cross Country, and it was not a requisite held by the school. The court declared that the
scholar was a voluntary and released the school for any charges because the coach made the
track safe for scholars under the school’s requirement (Wolohan, 2014). In the other hand, the
case of Ray Knight he knew that it could be dangerous exposing himself in the street without any
supervision. The school is only responsible to have the school maintenance safe and it cannot
control students from being at places where they are not supposed to be.
Tort and Liability 4
Although Ray Knight was not under the supervision of the school, the school could be
held liable for the student’s injury for not following the procedures in notifying Ray Knight’s
parents of his suspension. Ray’s injury can also be under a tort law, which is based in legal
premises that individuals are liable for their consequences of their conduct when it results in
injury to others (Underwood, 2016).
Tort and Liability 5
References
Eisel vs. Board of Education Montgomery County, 1991 Retrieved from
https://www.schoolcounselor.org/magazine/blogs/may-june-2012/student-suicide-legal-and-
ethical-implications
Glaser vs. Emporia Unified School District, 2001 Retrieved from
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1364854.html
Mitchel v. Cedar Rapids Community School District, 2013, No. 12-0794 Retrieved from
https://www.legis.iowa.gov/docs/publications/LU/16812.pdf
Underwood, J (2006) School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications. Upper
Saddle River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
Wolohan, School, Coach Sued for Negligence in Runner Injury, 2014 Retrieved from
https://www.athleticbusiness.com/civil-actions/middle-school-coach-sued-for-negligence-in-
runner-injury.html
Underwood, J. (2006) School Law For Teachers Concepts and Applications. Upper Saddle
River, NJ: Pearson Education, Inc.
