Sie sind auf Seite 1von 6

Running head: Portfolio Artifact #3 Brown 1

Taylor Brown
April 21, 2019
EDU 210
Portfolio Artifact #3
Portfolio Artifact #3 Brown 2

Following a three-day suspension due to unexcused absences, middle school student, Ray

Knight, was accidentally shot on his first day of suspension while he was at a friend’s house. The

school district has a policy that requires them to notify the parent/guardian via telephone and a

prompt written notice. The middle school provided a written notice to Ray Knight, and he threw

the notice away. A phone call wasn’t made to his parents; Therefore, his parents were unaware of

his suspension.

Titus VS. Lindberg is the first case I will be presenting in favor of Ray Knight’s parents

having defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials. In this case, a nine-

year-old student by the name of Robert A. Titus rode his bicycle to school and arrived on school

property at 8:05 a.m. After reaching school grounds, Robert entered along the bus driveway,

heading towards the bicycle rack. As he rounded the corner of the building and approached the

bicycle rack, Robert was struck with a paperclip that another student, thirteen-year-old Richard

Lindberg had shot with an elastic band. As a result, Robert was severely injured. The defendant,

Principal Smith was inside at the time of the incident. From 8:00 a.m., to 8:30 a.m., students are

supposed to be monitored outside before class begins, and due to the negligence on Smith’s

behalf, no staff was outside at the time of the incident. The court sided with the plaintiff on this

case, stating that had a supervisor been outside at the time of the incident, Lindberg would not

have had the opportunity to bully other students the way he did. The court found Principal Smith

negligent in his duty to supervise, thus, siding with the plaintiff. Titus VS. Lindberg sufficiently

backs up Ray Knight’s parents’ case to pursue liability charges against school officials for

negligence.

The second case present in favor of Ray Knight’s parents having defensible grounds to

pursue liability charges against the school officials is the case of D.C. VS. St. Landry Parish
Portfolio Artifact #3 Brown 3

School Board. In this case, the plaintiff D.C., brought on the suit for his twelve-year-old daughter

K.C., who is a seventh-grade student attending East Junior High School. On September 5, 1996,

K.C. was dismissed from her school without her father being notified, because her skirt was too

short and wasn’t deemed appropriate for school. The school policy states that students cannot

leave school grounds during operating hours without a parent’s knowledge or presence. While

K.C. was trying to walk unaccompanied back to her house to change her clothes, she was

sexually assaulted by a man named Neil Mark Lewis. The trial court concluded that all the

defendants were liable for the damages K.C. and D.C. suffered due to the incident. This case

sufficiently backs up Ray Knight’s parents’ case of liability charges against school officials for

their negligence.

Hoyem VS. Manhattan Beach City School District will be the first case submitted against

Ray’s parents having defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials. In

the case, Hoyem VS. Manhattan Beach City School District, a ten-year-old boy named Michael

Hoyem was attending summer school at Foster A. Begg School. Before scheduled classes

concluded on July 16th, Michael left school grounds. Following this, Michael was then struck by

a motorcycle at a public intersection where he was severely injured. Michael’s mother, plaintiff

Mary Ann Hoyem, alleged that the accident and injuries resulting from it were caused by the

school district’s negligent supervision. The court sided with the defendant, stating that the

defendant’s “alleged negligence was not a proximate cause of plaintiff’s injuries as a matter of

law.” This case affirms that when a student is no longer on school grounds, the school district

cannot be held responsible for what happens to its’ students. Therefore, Ray Knight’s parents

cannot go after the school officials because Ray was not on school grounds when the incident

occurred.
Portfolio Artifact #3 Brown 4

The second court case being presented against Ray Knight’s parents having defensible

grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials is, Glaser VS. Emporia Unified

School District. In this case, a seventh-grade student at Lowther Middle School was being chased

off school grounds and into a public street by a fellow classmate when he was struck by a vehicle

driven by Patricia Gould-Lipson. The collision between the plaintiff and the driver of the

automobile, happened prior to school hours beginning. The school district has policies in place

stating that the school district does not owe a duty to supervise the students prior to the school

day beginning. The court sided with the defendant, stating that the defendants had not assumed

the duty to supervise the plaintiff before school operating hours. This case affirms that the school

district is not responsible for students outside of operating hours. Therefore, Ray Knight’s

parents do not have a case in going after the school district for liability charges because Ray was

not on school grounds when the incident occurred.

In conclusion, my decision in the case is in favor of Ray Knight and his parents pursuing

liability charges against school officials because Ray’s parents were unaware of his suspension

due to the negligence rendered by the school officials. If his parents were notified about his

school suspension via the required phone call that the school officials failed to place, Ray’s

parents could have had a better idea of his whereabouts the day of the accidental shooting,

resulting in Ray’s severe injury. The school district and officials should be held responsible for

their negligence, this situation could have been avoided had Ray’s parents known about his

suspension. My decision is supported by the court cases, Titus VS. Lindberg, and, D.C. VS. St.

Landry Parish School Board.


Portfolio Artifact #3 Brown 5

References:

FindLaw's Supreme Court of Kansas case and opinions. (2001, April 20). Retrieved from

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ks-supreme-court/1364854.html

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist. (1978, October 25). Retrieved from

https://law.justia.com/cases/california/supreme-court/3d/22/508.html

Louisiana, C. O. (2001, May 25). D.C. v. ST. LANDRY PARISH | 802 So.2d 19 (2001) |

2so2d191819. Retrieved from https://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802so2d191819

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and

Applications. Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.


Portfolio Artifact #3 Brown 6