Running head: THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 1

The Knight Scenario

Jonathan B. Wood

College of Southern Nevada

 THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 2

Abstract

This artifact discusses Ray Knight, a middle school student, whom was suspended from

school and was shot while at a friend’s house. Presented is various court cases that discuss

whether the school could potential be at fault for this shooting and what type of judgment could

be possibly reached after reviewing them.

 THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 3

The Knight Scenario

The scenario brought forward in this artifact discusses Ray Knight, a middle school student

who was suspended for three (3) days after an excessive number of unexcused absences. The

school had an obligation to inform the parents of the suspension by a telephone call as well as a

written statement which was required to be mailed to the parents home following the suspension.

Neither of these required notifications occurred, instead, Ray was sent home with a note

informing his parents of his suspension, which he threw away before his parents were able to

read it. During Ray’s suspension he was accidentally shot while at a friend’s home. The issue

being raised is due to the school being negligent in informing Ray’s parents of his suspension, do

they have justifiable cause in filing suit against the school?

The majority of the discussion in this case focuses on the federal mandate regarding tort

liability. This specific scenario would relate directly to the mandate regarding negligence.

Negligence is referred to as “a breach of one’s legal duty to protect others from unreasonable

risks of harm”(Cambron et. all, p. 20). Four elements must be present in order to file a successful

claim. Those four elements are: a duty to protect the plaintiff, that duty is breached by failure to

exercise an appropriate standard of care, the negligent conduct is proximal or legal cause of the

injury, and an actual injury occurs (Cambron et. all, p. 20). The following court cases address

tort liability directly related to negligence.

“Pro”

In May 2003, high school student Bridgette Maldonado was allegedly attacked in her home

by high school student Brian Morris. Both students attended Tuckahoe High School at the time
 THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 4

the incident occurred (Maldonado vs. Tuckahoe Union, 2006). The file claimed Morris had made

threatening remarks to Maldonado in the month leading up to the attack. Morris was on

suspension from school at the time of the attack. The school alleged that while they do have a

duty to protect students during school hours, the breach of duty does not extend off campus and

the school should not be responsible for actions that take place off school campus, regardless of

the reasoning behind the student not being in school, in this case Morris being suspended from

school and the attack occurring during school hours. The District Court ruled in favor of the

Defendant as Maldonado willingly allowed Morris into her home, even following prior threats

that had been made. In relating this case back to the original scenario regarding Ray Knight, the

school would not be held responsible, as the shooting which occurred off campus is comparable

to the attack that occurred between Maldonado and Morris.

In November 1998, Zachary Thomason, a student at Westview High School in Arizona,

was operating a vehicle during lunch hour when he was involved in a fatal car accident (Collette

vs. Tolleson Unified, 1998). Thomason’s parents filed suit, stating that the school should be held

responsible as the school had a strict closed campus lunch policy and allowed Thomason to leave

the school, which ultimately led to his death. A school monitor at the school reported that he had

told Thomason not to leave campus as he did not have a valid “lunch pass” but that Thomason

stated that he would just be going to his home to get some school books, which the school

monitor allowed. Thomason instead went to the mall for lunch and the car accident occurred as

he was driving back to the school. The District Court ultimately sided with the school, stating

that while they did in fact display some negligence in allowing Thomason to leave the campus,

they did not have control over road conditions and should not be responsible for any incident that
 THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 5

may occur off campus. This scenario has a similar outcome as the previous case in that the court

alleged that the school should not be held responsible for any accidental incident which occurs

off campus.

“Con”

In 1975 at a high school in Ohio, Goss v. Lopez was reviewed by the Supreme Court

involving nine (9) students who were allegedly suspended after destroying school property and

disrupting the learning environment (Goss v. Lopez, 1975). Ohio state law gave the principal of

the school a maximum of 10 days expulsion or suspension. The law required that parents or

guardians be given 24 hours notice prior to the suspension or expulsion. If the student was

expelled from school the parent or guardian had the right to appeal the decision through the

Board of Education, however, no such allowance was given if the student was suspended. The

District Court sided with the Plaintiff, stating that by not allowing the student to have a fair

chance to appeal the decision, it was violating their 14th Amendment right under the Due

Process clause. The outcome of this Supreme Court case placed a mandate into effect requiring

that parents and/or guardians be notified of their child’s suspension and/or expulsion to allow the

guardian the right to an appeal.

“Judgement”

Prior to the Goss v. Lopez case, it was apparent that the family would not have a solid case

if they were to file a claim with the school as all scenarios sided with the District Court as tort

liability, specifically negligence, would not apply as the incident occurred off campus and the

school does not have liability over students if they are not on the school grounds; however, after

reviewing the Goss v. Lopez claim, there may be a chance that the school could have some

consequence regarding their mandate to notify parents of the suspension in a timely manner. The
 THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 6

school would not be responsible for the shooting of Ray Knight, as it occurred off campus,

however, they may be held responsible for not allowing the parents to file an appeal following

the suspension. The school should be responsible for ensuring that any parent or guardian is fully

aware of the decision to suspend the student prior to the decision being made.
 THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 7

References

Bridgette Maldonado v Tuckahoe Union Free School District. (2006, June 20).

http://law.justia.com/cases/new-york/appellate-division-second-department/2006/2006-

04989.html

Cambron-McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes (2014). Legal Rights of Teachers and Students. Pp. 20-

40

FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (2002, December 12).

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-appeals/1291266.html

Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Oyez. Retrieved October 8, 2015, from

https://www.oyez.org/cases/1974/73-898
THE KNIGHT SCENARIO 8