Portfolio 3 Lara 1

Portfolio 3
Stephanie Lara
CSN
Portfolio 3 Lara 2

In regards to Ray Knight, a middle school student that was suspended from school for

three days due to unexplained absences. The school district only sent a note home with the

student as opposed to following their procedures which include a telephone notification as well

as a written notice by mail to the parents of the student. The middle school only sent a notice

home with Ray which he threw it away. By Ray throwing away the notice his parents were

unaware of his suspension. During his first day of suspension a tragic accident occurred and Ray

was shot while visiting his friend's house.

I believe that Ray's parents do have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges

against school officials. For the fact of the parents thought their child was safe at school that day.

They didn't have any idea that he had been suspended from school for three days for unexcused

absences. Even though the school sent a note home with Ray they had no guarantee it would

make it home to the parents and that they would be knowledgeable of his suspension. The school

district defiantly should have called and left a message if anything to be sure they were aware as

well as sending something in the mail to ensure they would be aware of the unexcused absences.

By the school district not following procedures and ensuring that the parents were aware

of the suspension. It seems there is legal liability on the school. The school has no way of

knowing that the note given to the student ever made it home to the parents. Now the parent's

child has died due to the fact that he was shot since he was suspended. Which had the parents

been aware of the situation at hand and at least known about the suspension they most likely

would not had let their child go to a friends house due to the fact that he had been suspended.

They could have ensured that he was home safe and not under no supervision for that day.

In the case of Jerkins v. Anderson; Jerkins was struck by a car in the road and caused
Portfolio 3 Lara 3

him catastrophic injuries that rendered him quadriplegic. The appellate court reversed the lower

court's ruling and remanded the case for a trial. The court determined that the district had a legal

duty to Joseph based on multiple factors. First the court concluded that the risk of harm was

foreseeable, reasoning as follows: It is foreseeable that a nine year old child, who is dismissed

early from school and not met by a parent or older sibling, would remain unsupervised for

several hours. Consequently, the child would remain without supervision and could be injured by

an accident of the sort hat occurred here. Also, there was negligence dismissing Joseph without

taking reasonable steps to ensure that a responsible person would be on hand to take over his

supervision.

In the case of D.C. v St. Landry Parish a Louisiana appellate court upheld a trial court

aware of $20,000 to a 12 year old junior high student for emotional injuries after she was

sexually molested on her way home from school in the middle of the school day. The assistant

principal had informed her that her skirt was too short and was in violation of school dress code,

but failed to show the policy which required an administrator to obtain direct contact with a

parent before signing a student out of school. Thus, had a parent been notified and she was

released to a parent she would not have been walking home alone in the middle of the day alone

and been molested.

In the case of Rodgers v Retrum this case was against taking responsibility and liability

charges. These students cut classed and were victims of vehicular accidents when they left the

school on their own. The appeals court concluded that the district had no legal duty but warned

the "parents" supervisory expectations may reasonably differ at differing levels of schools.

Now on the other hand the school district isn't going to feel liable for the death of Ray
Portfolio 3 Lara 4

Knight. Due to the fact that he had been suspended and upon suspension there would have been

meetings with the administration explaining all this to Ray. At the same time these meetings

should have involved the parents being there are at least a phone conference to ensure they knew

what was happening. By the school only sending a note home with the student they may have felt

that was adequate enough but they shouldn't surmise the parents were going to actually be made

aware of the suspension. Since they did send the note home they should of at least followed

through with a phone call that afternoon to be sure one of his parents were aware of the problem

and that he would not be at school for next three days.

In conclusion, both court cases may not be the same as Ray Knight but they are similar

in nature as the schools do have set procedures and guidelines they are to follow in making

contact with a parent along with a mail notification, prior to the release of a student. This tragic

event that happened to Ray Knight could of all been avoidable had there been contact made with

his parents and appropriate measures were taken to see to it that they were aware their son would

not be in school for three days as he had unexcused absences and was now suspended.
Portfolio 3 Lara 5

References

Zirkel, Perry A. (2007). Liability for Off-Campus Nonschool Activity. Retrieved September 20,
2015 from www. Naesp.org