You are on page 1of 3

Portfolio Artifact #3

Ray Knight is a middle school student who was suspended due to unexcused
absences. The school policy procedures are to immediately notify the parents by
telephone as well as send a notice home by mail. The school opted to send the note
home by the student and he threw it away. The parents were never aware of their
sons suspension. While on suspension Ray went over to a friends house and was
accidently shot. As a result, Rays parents want to pursue liability charges against
school officials.
The parents of Ray Knight argue that the school breached its duty by not
following school policy procedures. They believe that if the school had properly
informed them of their sons suspension then the accident could have been
avoided. To support the argument let us review the court case of Jerkins Ex Rel.
Jerkins v Anderson and the Pleasantville Board of Education. This case involved a 9
year-old boy who was struck by a car after the school day ended with an early
dismissal. The childs family members, who typically walked him home from school,
claimed they did not know about the early dismissal. The Appellate Division found a
duty on the part of the school district to exercise care. That duty requires school
districts to adopt and comply with a reasonable dismissal supervision policy, provide
adequate notice of that policy to parents and guardians and comply with parents
reasonable requests regarding dismissal (Jerkins Ex Rel. Jerkins v. Anderson. 922
A.2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285).
Similarly in the case of Perna v Conejo Valley Unified School District, the
California Court of Appeals held that a school district may be held liable for injuries
suffered by a student off school premises and after school hours when those injuries
are the result of the schools negligence while the student was on school premises
(Perna v Conejo Valley Unified School District 143 Cal. App. 3d 292, 192 Cal. Rptr.
10, 10 (1983).
The school board will argue that it had no duty to protect against injuries
caused by a third party that occurred off campus. To support their defense let us
review the court case of Collette v. Tolleson Unified High School District. In this case
a high school student was killed and others were seriously injured in an automobile
accident that occurred off campus during lunch hour. The plaintiff argued that the
school was negligent in allowing students to leave campus for lunch in failing to
enforce its modified closed-campus policy. The school argued that it had no duty to
protect against injuries occurring in off-campus lunchtime accidents (Collette v.
Tolleson Unified School District No 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362 (App. 2002). The court in
this case ruled in favor of the school district.
Concerning Ray Knight, the school may argue that there is no common law
duty to control the conduct of a third person so as to prevent harm from befalling
them (Collette v Tolleson Unified School District No 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362 (App.
2002). Let us look at the case of Davis v Mangelsdorf. In this case Ms. Davis wanted
to recover for personal injuries sustained in an automobile accident caused by a
driver who lost control of his vehicle while suffering an epileptic seizure. She took
action against the drivers former physician who had advised the driver to
discontinue the use of an anti-convulsive drug 17 years prior to the accident. Davis
alleges that Dr. Mangelsdorf was negligent in advising Mr. Smith to cease taking
Dilantin. The courts ruled in Mangelsdorfs favor stating that there is no duty so to
control the conduct of a third person as to prevent him from causing harm to
another because no special relationship existed. The relationship ended when Mr.
Smith was no longer his patient and therefore Dr. Mangelsdorf did not owe a duty to
protect Ms. Davis from the injuries suffered (Davis v. Mangelsdorf, 138 Ariz. 207,
208, 673 P.2d 951, 952 (App.1983).

In order for a plaintiff to win in negligence lawsuit four elements of


negligence must be established: duty, breach of duty, causation, and injury
(Underwood, Webb, p 100). All of these elements must be proven before damages
can be recovered. In the case concerning Ray Knight I find that the court will rule in
his favor. Due to school officials not following the proper school district procedures
they breached its duty of care. If Ray Knights parents had been made aware of his
suspension the accident may not have occurred. When there is a series of events
leading up to an injury, the person starting that chain of events may be liable for
the resultant injury if it was a foreseeable result of his negligence. Just as in the
case of Jerkins v Anderson the courts ruled on June 14, 2007 that the school owed a
duty to exercise care. Also in the case of Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School
District the court ruled on May 17, 1983 that the school should be held liable for an
injury suffered off premises but resulted from negligence while the student was on
the premise. Therefore in the case of Ray Knight the school was negligent in its duty
to follow school procedures, which led to the improper supervision of a minor, which
resulted in injury.
References

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District No. 214, 203 Ariz. 359, 362 (App.
2002).
Davis v. Mangelsdorf, 138 Ariz. 207, 208, 673 P.2d 951, 952 (App.1983).
Jerkins Ex Rel. Jerkins v Anderson, 922 A.2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285.
Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified School District, 143 Cal.App.3d 292, 192
Cal.Rptr. 10, 10 (1983).

You might also like