Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Adrienne Plummer
In this case study, a middle school student is suspended because of unexcused absences,
and subsequently shot the day after, while at a friends house. There was a failure to follow
specified procedure in how to notify the students parents, accordingly, of the suspension. Ray
Knight failed to give his parents the only notification given to him by the school. The arguments
to be addressed are whether, or not, the parents can pursue damages against the school, and the
Knight voluntarily threw away the notice of suspension given to him by the school
officials. He did not report his punishment to his parents about being suspended, and decided to
try and get away with a few free days of not being at school; thus being without adult
supervision. This seems to imply that he was fully aware that his actions were inappropriate.
Although he is a younger student, A partys youth is taken into consideration when judging
whether or not he knew or should have known of the danger, but it does not excuse his
relevant, is the reason for his suspensionthat of unexcused absences. This supports the
Another relevant case involves the deaths of three teenage students. The students were
participating in a school camp event and snuck out to play on the river in the middle of the night.
They drowned, but the decision of the courts was, That teenagers may behave in [a] manner
exposing themselves and others to injury [but that] is legally insufficient to support [a] claim of
willful and wanton misconduct [by the school] in absence of specific, foreseeable, and probable
danger (Choice v. YMCA of McHenry County, 2012). It is terrible that Knight was shot, but he
Tort and liability 3
knowingly took on the risk of injury, by not staying at home while suspended, failing to alert his
In his defense, as seen in Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District (1992), A
school district may be held liable for injuries to a student occurring off school premises, if the
occurrence is a reasonably foreseeable result of the conduct of school personnel on the school
premises. Due to a lack of procedure, Ray Knights guardians were not notified in the required
mannerin this case, by telephone and prompt written notice by mail. As stated earlier, because
of the implication of behavioral misconduct by the student, the school should have contacted his
parents in the required method, and allowed them to be made aware of his bad behavior.
The school had a duty to ensure the safety of its students. While administering
consequences for certain transgressions, following a strict adherence to procedural rules and
a principal task of supervisors is to anticipate and curb rash student behavior, our courts have
often held that a failure to prevent injuries caused by the intentional or reckless conduct of the
victim or a fellow student may constitute negligence (Dailey v. Los Angeles Unified School
District, 1970).
Ray Knights parents have legitimate grounds to support a lawsuit against the school.
Although Knight behaved in a truant manner, and should be held accountable (Nikkila v. Niemi,
1967), even if he is young, the fact that the school was negligent in its duty to notify his parents
cannot be overlooked. The school is liable for the accident which occurred. If the school had
correctly informed his guardians, then the accident may not have befallen. As in Brownell v. Los
Angeles Unified School District (1992), The duty to supervise encompasses the duty to look
outside before releasing the students. Nobody looked. It was not clear what they would have seen
Tort and liability 4
had they looked. They may or may not have seen these gang members walking down the street.
References
Brownell v. Los Angeles Unified School District, 4 Cal. App. 4th 787 (1992).