Running head: Ray Knight 1

Unaware Suspension For Ray Knight

Yasmin A. Gonzalez

College of Southern Nevada

Abstract
UNAWARE SUSPENSION FOR RAY KNIGHT 2

In this case law presented Ray Knight is suspended for so many absences by the school

without notifying the parents directly. The school only gave a letter to the student but it did not

get to the parents, when the suspension started Ray went to a friends house and got shot. Such

incident brought the parents to sue the school for not notifying them directly and got partially

blamed for the incident that happened in the student. The argument that is formed is between if

the school should also receive charges for what happened or if they don’t have anything to do

with the incident. In this paper both options are supported.

UNAWARE SUSPENSION FOR RAY KNIGHT 3

Unaware Suspension For Ray Knight Ended Tragically

The parents of Ray Knight sued the school for not notifying them directly and not being

able to be aware that their son was going to be staying at home. The parents had the rights to be

notified beforehand what was happening with the student, because if there was so many

unexcused absences how come suspension came in right away before asking the parents what

was going on with the child. The parents of course in this situation thought that their child was

save at home.

In the con side of this case law against the school. For example in another case law like

Stain v. Cedar Rapids Comm. School Dist. the counselors were negligent and did not inform the

student of the possibility of getting a scholarship, because they did not notify him. The

counselors have the duty “ to use reasonable care in providing certain information to a student” if

this was the case they did the right in informing the student, but they did not have a meeting with

the student before suspending him. Having a meeting with the student at first and asking him

first what were the reasons to so many unexcused absences would have gotten the counselors an

answer of what was possibly going on at home than from there they could have done a meeting

with the parents to go over the information the student gave them and question them, and let

them know there that their child was going to be suspended.

Another example would be Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery; in this case the

counselors failed to notify the parents about the suicidal statements of the student. The

counselors thought that by asking the student if those statements were true or false would be

enough to determine if the parents should know. Which that was wrong because even though the

student denied them, the parents still had to be alert. They failed at doing their duty.
UNAWARE SUSPENSION FOR RAY KNIGHT 4

Schools are responsible for the students on school grounds before and after school if they were

requested to be there by the same school. But so then if the student was not requested to be at

school that day because of suspension, the parents were not notified but that did not mean that

the student had the permission of his parents to go somewhere else other than school. Also

maybe that was why the student had so many unexcused absences and the parents did not know,

and the student was taking advantage and going to a friend house instead. The school never

assume any risk would happen when the student was out in suspension. This outcome

demonstrates that the school did not meet its duty to hire and retain qualified competent staff. An

example: Mullin v Richards (1998) CA in this case law a 15yr old girl was having a “sword

fight” but with rulers with another student in the classroom. Such game turned out to in bad

consequences and the 15 yr old’s ruler snapped and one of the pieces went directly into her eye

causing permanent damage. The parents sued the school for the incident because to the parents

the teacher had failed at doing her duty. The court ruled against the parents because there was not

enough evidence that said that the incident could have been avoided since it was just a game

between the two teens. This case law is an example of how even sometimes teachers are not

responsible of the students actions, Ray decided to go to his parents house but he did not notify

anyone and even if he had if it was already in his plans of going the incident could have still

happened.

A comparative negligence should take place in this argument because the actions of the

kid took him to the injury of course he did not know that by going to his friends house there was

going to be a possibility of him getting shot but so it wasn’t the school’s to know if the student

was going to be at risk while being suspended. The parents were able to prove an injury because
UNAWARE SUSPENSION FOR RAY KNIGHT 5

for the loss of his child but also they should have had a better supervision over the child assuring

he was getting safe to school.

In this case law I would agree that the school should accept part of the negligence since it

failed to complete its duty and provide the information directly to the parents that their child

would be suspended. At least this way the parents would know he was going to be staying home

and maybe contact someone who could take care of him while they were gone. But also the

parents should have watched over their child more and not just trusting that he would go to

school and get there safely because he is also exposed to danger.

UNAWARE SUSPENSION FOR RAY KNIGHT 6

References

Parents Rights In Education. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

http://parentsrightsined.net/

Nevada Negligence Laws. (n.d.). Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/nevada-law/nevada-negligence-laws.html

P. (2017, December 04). School's Duty to Provide Safe Environment to Students: Delhi

HC. Retrieved February 13, 2018, from https://www.thequint.com/news/india/delhi-hc-says-

schools-duty-to-provide-safe-environment-to-students

Weblog, L. (2000, September 12). Retrieved February 12, 2018, from

http://sixthformlaw.info/02_cases/mod3a/aqa/_cases_tort_2breach.htm#Blake v Galloway

[2004] CA