A3: COURT CASE ANALYSIS 1

Assignment/Artifact #3: Court Case Analysis

Amber Parker

College of Southern Nevada

A3: COURT CASE ANALYSIS 2

Assignment/Artifact #3: Court Case Analysis

Scenario Summary

This paper will address four court cases that can be used to support a pro and con

argument for the following scenario. Two court cases will be used as supporting evidence for a

pro argument and the other two will be used as supporting evidence for a con argument. A

middle school student by the name of Ray Knight was given a three-day suspension from school

due to many unexcused absences. Despite the school districts strict policies involve making a

phone call and sending a letter by mail to notify the parents of a student’s truancy, Ray’s school

saw it fit to only send a notice through Ray himself. Not wanting his parents to find out, Ray

threw away the notice. Since they did not get the notice, Ray’s parents had no idea that he was

suspended from school. The first day of his suspension, Ray went to a friend’s house where he

was accidentally shot. The following court cases will be used to help determine whether or not

Ray’s parents have proper defensible grounds to file both a lawsuit and liability charges towards

school officials.

Two Court Cases – Parents Have Right to Press Charges.

Briefly looking at this court case scenario, many people would say that the parents

absolutely have a right to press charges. Two cases that can be used to support this argument

include Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County (1991) and King v. Northeast

Security Inc. (2000). The Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County case tells the story

of thirteen-year-old student Nicole Eisel and one of her friends who made a murder/suicide pact

that they carried out together. As a result of her death, Nicole Eisel’s father, Stephen Eisel,

pressed charges against the school counselors claiming that their negligence to inform him of

Nicole’s suicidal statements to her peers was the reason that she died. Mr. Eisel claimed that he
A3: COURT CASE ANALYSIS 3

could have saved Nicole’s life had the counselors made him aware of her suicidal thoughts and

intentions. This case is similar to Ray’s in the sense that in both cases, the parents were not

properly informed of their student’s personal issues. As a result, the court could use this case to

support Ray’s parent’s lawsuit against the school officials for being negligent and not properly

informing them of Ray’s suspension.

The second court case that can be used to support Ray’s parent’s lawsuit is King v.

Northeast Security Inc. In this case, high school student Nicholas King was brutally attacked by

fellow students in the school parking lot. As a result of his brutal beating, King’s parents went to

court with a lawsuit against Northeast Security Inc, the school’s security program, for breaching

their duty to provide security services to Nicholas and protect him from violent acts at school.

Both in Nicholas and ray’s case, their incidents were caused due to the school staff’s negligence

to follow basic procedures lined out for them to prevent cases such as these. That being said, the

court could use King’s case to support Ray’s parent’s lawsuit for the negligence of school

officials to properly do their job.

Two Court Cases – Parents Don’t Have Right to Press Charges.

In order to provide evidence to prevent Ray’s parents from rightfully suing school

officials for negligence, the court could look at both Collette v. Tolleson (2002) and Glaser v.

Emporia Unified School District (2001). In Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, a student

decided to take a break and leave the school campus to go to a mall five miles away. On his way

back from his break at the mall, he cause a car crashe that ends up injuring several people who

were riding in the same car. Zachary, the high school student who caused the car crash, broke his

school policy that requires students to sign in and out each time they leave and enter the school.

This policy also requires the student to have parental approval prior to them leaving campus.
A3: COURT CASE ANALYSIS 4

Parents of the passengers went to court claiming that the school officials and security guards did

not do enough to stop Zachary and the others from going to the mall. The court upheld that the

school was not at fault, as nothing happened to Zachary at school that would cause him to crash

his car. The court further stated that the school was not at fault since Zachary’s car was not

provided by the district, and since he had a valid driver’s license while driving on a public street

for personal use. The court overseeing Ray’s case could use this case to argue that Ray’s parents

do not have the right to press charges since Ray was not shot on school grounds. They could use

this case to argue that Ray’s school is not at fault since they sent a notice of Ray’s suspension

like they were supposed to.

Another court case that could be used to as evidence to prevent Ray’s parents from filing

charges is Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District In this court case, Todd Glaser, a seventh

grade at Lowther Middle School in Emporia, Kansas, was hit by a car while attempting to run

across a public street to get away from other students who were chasing him. When Glaser wen

to court, the judge ruled in favor of the school district stating that since the accident took place

before school had started session, the school district was not responsible for what happened on,

off, or near school premises. This case could be used to argue Ray’s case by saying that since

Ray never went to school the day he was shot, the school cannot be held responsible for what

happened to him.

Probable Court Ruling & Personal Opinion.

Based on the facts from Ray’s case and the evidence gathered from the four court cases, I

think that the court would rule in Ray’s favor. I believe that the court would agree with Ray’s

parents that his school did not follow protocol correctly when they needed to notify them of

Ray’s suspension. As a result of their negligence, the court would most likely support Ray’s
A3: COURT CASE ANALYSIS 5

parents with their lawsuit against school officials and I think that this would be the correct

choice. In my opinion, this case should be resolved via contributory negligence since the school

did not do their job when it came to following protocol by calling Ray’s parents or sending a

letter through the mail that notified his parents of his suspension. However, I also think that this

is as much Ray’s fault as it is the school’s since he never told his parents he was suspended.

There is also a third component that is important to think about. If Ray’s parents had known

about his suspension, would anything have been different? Who knows? Maybe Ray’s parents

would have been able to stop him from going to his friend’s house that day, which could have

prevented him from being shot. But maybe nothing would have changed. After all, Ray’s parents

are the ones who didn’t excuse Ray’s absences which was the cause of his suspension.
A3: COURT CASE ANALYSIS 6

References

Collette v. Tolleson, 203 Ariz. 359 (2002)

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 324 US 376 (1991)

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, 271 Kan. 178 (2001)

King v. Northeast Security Inc., 732 US 824 (2000)