Artifact #3 Ray Knight v.

Board of Education

Artifact #3

Tort and Liability

Tiffany Dukes

College of Southern Nevada

September 24, 2017

Artifact #3 Ray Knight v. Board of Education

Artifact #3 Ray Knight v. Board of Education

Ray Knight was a student who was suspended due to an overabundance of unexcused

absences. In addition to, if a student has a number of unexcused absences the procedure was for

the school to inform the parent by both a call home and a letter sent home with the student.

Unfortunately, the schools policies that were set forth were not followed and only a notice was

sent home with Ray which he threw away. As a result, Rays parents were unaware that he had

been suspended and instead of being at school on that day he was shot, he was actually at a

friends house. Ray Knights parents were only informed on a school day that their son was shot

at a friends house. Now, Ray Knight's parents are pursuing a judgment against the school,

holding them liable for the death of their son.

Furthermore, Rays parents argue that it was the school's responsibility to inform the

parents of a minor when he has been suspended. This would include following procedures that

are set forth for a reason. If the policies had been followed as directed then this accident would

have been avoided. The parents have grounds for argument based according to the court case

Jerkins Ex Rel. Jerkins v Anderson and the Pleasantville Board of Education. In this case a nine-

year old boy, whom was released from school early was struck and killed by a vehicle. Typically

the boy would have been walked home by an older child who claims he was unaware that school

was released at an early time. 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
Artifact #3 Ray Knight v. Board of Education

guardians and comply with parents reasonable requests regarding dismissal (Jerkins Ex Rel.

Jerkins v. Anderson. 922 A.2d 1279 (2007) 191 N.J. 285).

In similarity, the courts may argue that the school did fail to perform the standard

procedures of notifying the parents of Rays suspension, by sending written notice home with the

student. In addition to arguing that Ray was actively negligent on his part and played a crucial

role in his injury since he threw the letter away, he could have also erased the voice message

from the answering machine prior to his parents hearing it. Furthermore, the written notice by

mail would not have been received in time to prevent the incident Similar case of argument

would be that of, Perna v Conejo Valley Unified School District, the California Court of

Appeals. According this court case argument were made stating 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).

Unfortunately Ray seemed to have had a number of unexcused absences which on one

hand the blame should fall not only on him, but also his parents. It is only the school's

responsibility to care for Ray while he is on school property, leaving his parents responsible after

he leaves the property. Which leaves the question, should the school be held responsible for a

student prior to them ever arriving on campus? Unfortunately, his school would have never

known about the incident and certainly the consequence on Ray visiting his friends house that

day.
Artifact #3 Ray Knight v. Board of Education

In addition to, if Ray;s parents wanted to argue and win a negligence lawsuit they would

need to argue on four elements of negligence: first injury, causation, duty, and finally breach of

duty.(Underwood, Webb, p 100) Fortunately, for Rays parents I believe that the courts would

rule in their favor for several reasons. First due to the lack of standards the teacher failed to

uphold as part of her job requirements the court would argue that the teacher and the school is at

fault which resulted in Rays injury. When there is a series of events leading up to an injury,

the person starting the chain of events may be liable for the resultant injury if it was a foreseeable

result of his negligence (Underwood, Webb, p 105). Therefore in the case of Ray Knight v.

Board of Education the argument will stand, Rays school was negligent in its duty to follow

school procedures, which led to the improper supervision of a minor, resulting in injury.

References
Artifact #3 Ray Knight v. Board of Education

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).

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. (2006). Teacher's Rights. In School Law for Teachers (pp. 100, 105).
Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson Education.