Artifact #3 Tort and Liability

Jennifer Vazquez
March 10, 2018
Edu 210 1004
Artifact #3
Tort and Liability
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability

There are rules and policies throughout schools based on attendance, absences, and how

to follow a punishment for unexcused absences. Ray Knight is a middle school student that was

suspended for three days because he had unexcused absences. The school district has procedures

to notify the student’s parents. The school procedure requires the school to make a telephone

notification and a written notice to be mailed to his parents. The school however, only sent out a

notice with Mr. Knight and he throw it away. Because of this his parents were never notified or

aware that he was suspended. The first day of his suspension he was visiting his friend’s house

when he was accidentally shot. Due to this accident Ray’s parents want to press liability charges

against the school officials.

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991) is case presented in favor of

Ray Knight’s parents to press liability charges against school officials. In the case of Eisel v.

Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991) a claim was made about specific individuals

that neglected their professional duties. Two counselors at the school had negligently failed

communicate to a student’s parents about the student’s suicide statements. The counselors meet

and questioned the student about the suicide statements that were made however the student

denied all that was asked. After this the counselors did nothing more. The court ruled that the

counselors have a duty to “use reasonable mean to prevent a suicide when they have notice”. The

counselors could have done more to help the student and notify the parents. This case helps to

show that Ray Knight’s parents have grounds for liability charges against the school officials

because the schools have a duty to their students to keep them safe and keep parents informed

about the things that happen in the school. The professional malpractice in education refers to

those who neglectingly perform their professional duties. In Ray knight’s case the school had a

procedure to follow when someone is suspended due to unexcused absences. The school failed to
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability

notify Knight’s parents and accurately follow the procedures needed to send a notification of his

current situation because of this the school would be liable because he was hurt, there was a

severe injury that occurred.

King v. Northeast Security, Inc. (2003) is another case presented in favor of Ray Knight’s

parents to press liability charges against the school officials. In the case of King v. Northeast

Security, Inc. (2003) a student sued the school district for negligence. A school hired a private

security service after an increase of criminal activity in the area around the school. Right after

the school was dismissed a student was beat up by four other students on the school parking lot.

The Indiana supreme court ruled that the school could not be liable for the failure to prevent a

crime, but it was held liable for the failure to take reasonable safety precautions. The same was

given for Ray knight’s case were the school failed to take the appropriate safety precautions and

notify his parents about his status in school. There were more things that the school could have

done due to the duty to provide a safe environment, where the parents are aware of what is

happening in their son’s school life. The court would rule in favor of Ray Knight’s parents

because the school would be held liable for failing to notify and take the appropriate precautions

to avoid an injury from happening when the parents are not aware that their son was suspended.

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001) is a case presented to argue that Ray

Knight’s parents do not have grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials. In the

case of Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001) a seventh grade student was hit be a car

and he was injured as he went off school grounds to a public street because he was being chased

by another student. The family of the student sued for negligence and not being able supervise

the students. In the state supreme court, it was ruled that the school was not held liable because
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability

the student was out of the school property, school hours, and no longer under the school’s

custody. The school’s duty to adequately supervise students was not under their control or

custody. Meaning that the case of Ray Knight would be somewhat like this ruling, where the

school would not be held liable for Ray Knight’s accident because it was not in school’s duty to

adequately supervise students. Ray Knight was not in the school building or in school hours. He

was suspended, and a notification was sent out to his parents. It would be up to the parent’s duty

to know his whereabouts.

Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co (2003), is another case argue that

Ray Knight’s parents do not have grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials. In

the case of Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co (2003), the court had to

determine whether professional malpractice was presented. A guidance counselor’s faulty advice

regarding NCAA eligibility resulted in a student losing his college scholarship. However, the

court ruled that school district was not liable for educational malpractice. In Ray Knight’s case

the ruling would be similar because it was not educational malpractice that the notification that

was sent out with the student about the suspension did not make it his parents hands. It was the

student’s judgement to throw away the notice even when the school gave him the notice for his

parents to be aware of his suspension.

Overall, the decision for this case would be in favor of Ray Knight’s parents for grounds

of liability charges against the school officials. In the case Eisel v. Board of Education of

Montgomery County (1991), the court ruled that the counselors have a duty to “use reasonable

mean to prevent a suicide when they have notice”. The counselors could have done more to help

the student and notify the parents. The professional malpractice in education refers to those who
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability

neglectingly perform their professional duties. In Ray knight’s case the school had a procedure to

follow when someone is suspended due to unexcused absences. There needed to more be done to

successfully notify his parents about his suspension. In the case of King v. Northeast Security,

Inc. (2003), a student sued the school district for negligence because the school failed to take the

appropriate safety precautions. Under Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District (2001) and

Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co (2003), it would be argued that Ray Knight

was not in school property or under school custody however, the court would rule in favor of

Ray Knight’s parents because the school would be held liable for failing to notify and take the

appropriate precautions to avoid an injury from happening if his parents were properly notified.
Artifact #3 Tort and Liability

References

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County No. 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991). Retrieved
March 5, 2018.
https://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324md3761672

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District No. 253 EPP 253(2001). (n.d.). Retrieved March 5,
2018.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1364854.html

King v. Northeast Security, Inc. No.790 N.E.2d 474 (2003). Retrieved March 6, 2018.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/in-supreme-court/1053248.html

Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. No. 663 N.W.2d 715 (Wis. 2003). Retrieved
March 6, 2018.
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/wi-supreme-court/1324471.html

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teachers' Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper Saddle
River: Pearson Education.