Artifact 3 1

Artifact 3
Valerie Alvizo
EDU 210 Nevada School Law Summer 2016
College of Southern Nevada
Artifact 3 2

Due to a series of unexcused absences, middle school student, Ray Knight was suspended

from school for three days. Notice of the suspension was sent home with Ray, however he threw

it away. Usually school district procedures require a phone call and a written notice sent home to

the parents. Because Ray threw away the notice his parents were not aware of his suspension.

Taking advantage of his time off from school Ray goes to visit with a friend, where he is

accidentally shot. His parents now are considering whether they have sufficient evidence of

finding the school liable for the incident.

Although the school sent a notice of the suspension home with the students they

ultimately failed to notify his parents. The parents could in this case argue that the student was

neglected his due process right and unjustly suspended from school, such as in the case of Jarius

Piphus, where he had been suspended without due process of law in violation of the Fourteenth

Amendment (Carey v. Piphus, 1978). Knights parents could file against the school for violation

of the fourteenth amendment for his suspension.

As far as the injury caused to Ray when being shot, the school can be found liable in

putting him in the way of danger and leaving him unsupervised, since his parents were unaware

of the suspension. The duty owed derives from the simple fact that a school, in assuming

physical custody and control over its students, effectively takes the place of parents and

guardians (Pratt v. Robinson, 1976).

The school however has in their favor the fact that there are limitations to who, what and

when they can supervise their students. When an injury results from the act of an intervening

third party which, under the circumstances, could hardly have been anticipated in the reasonable

exercise of the schools legal duty to the child, there can be no Liability on the part of the school
Artifact 3 3

(Passantino v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 1977). The school cannot assume

responsibility for the incident.

Because the incident did not happen on school property the school may find that it is in

their right that they are not liable for the incident. The school is not an insurer of safety,

however, and cannot be reasonably expected to continuously supervise and control all

movements and activities of students, and therefore, are not to be held liable "for every

thoughtless or careless act by which one pupil may injure another" (Ohman v. Board of

Education of the City of New York, 1950). The school can argue back that the jurisdiction of

their supervision ends at a certain point, in this case since Knight was suspended, he was not

required to be supervised by the school. As in the case of Mangold v. Ind. Dept. of Natural

Resources, The Court of Appeals also affirmed the trial court's grant of summary judgment in

favor of school ruling that it owed Matthew no duty because "Matthew was injured at his home

and not at school" (Mangold v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources and Switzerland

County School Corporation, 2001).

I believe that the courts will not find the school liable of any damage as it comes down to

the parents themselves, they are responsible for the safety and supervision of their own children.

The schools have a limitation to what they can supervise and are unable to guarantee the safety

of students outside of school related activities or off school campuses.

Artifact 3 4

References
Carey v. Piphus, 76-1149 (Supreme Court of United States March 21, 1978).
Mangold v. Indiana Department of Natural Resources and Switzerland County School
Corporation, 756 N.E. 2nd 970 (Supreme Court of Indiana October 25, 2001).
Ohman v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 301 N.Y. 662 (Court of Appeals of the
State of New York July 11, 1950).
Passantino v. Board of Education of the City of New York, 41 N.Y.2nd 1022 (Court of Appeals
of the State of New York April 26, 1977).
Pratt v. Robinson, 39 N.Y.2nd 554 (Court of Appeals of the State of New York May 13, 1976).