Running head: COURT CASE ANALYSIS 1

Court Case Analysis:

Assignment (Artifact) 3

Mikayla D. Castillo

College of Southern Nevada

COURT CASE ANALYSIS 2

A middle school student, Ray Knight was given a three-day suspension from his school

due to excessive absences that were not excused. His school has a protocol of giving notification

of his suspension to his parents by the phone and a physical paper of the notice, but the school

only gave Ray a notice of the suspension. This left his parents in the dark about the whole

situation. On his first suspension day, Ray was visiting a friend when he was accidentally shot. Is

it possible for Ray’s parents to think the school is at fault and have reasons to press charges

against school officials? The school never gave correct notification of the suspension to his

parents, but are they responsible for what happened to Ray when he was not at school? Would

charges against the school stick or just fall flat?

A court case that is able to support Ray’s parents is Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community

School District (2013). In this case, a female fourteen-year old special education student was

assaulted by an older male nineteen-year old special education student. The incident happened

off campus at a friend’s house after they had both skipped their last classes of the day, but the

school had not recorded her absence during that time which means her mother believed she was

in class. The mother of the assaulted female student sued the school district for negligence, and

other reasons, because even though they were off campus when the incident occurred, they were

supposed to be in school and they did not notify her that her child was not there. The school

district was found liable in the incident. This can be useful for Ray’s parents because they were

not told that he was suspended, the same as the assaulted student’s mother was not told her

daughter was not in her last class.

Another court case that would be helpful to the parents is Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach

City School District (1978). This case involves a young boy who was attending summer school
COURT CASE ANALYSIS 3

and was in an accident when he left campus. The boy’s mother was very upset about the incident

and saw the school as the responsible party because they should have been supervising her son.

The school did not see themselves as liable for what happened, but the mother did see them that

way and pressed charges against the school district. The court ruled that the school was at fault

because the boy was technically still supposed to be under their supervision. This relates to Ray

Knight’s incident because his parents expected him to be at school when it happened, since they

were not aware of his suspension.

A court case that can be in support of the school officials is Barnett v. Caldwell (2018). In

this case, two high school students were playing around in a classroom after the teacher had

stepped out. One of the students, Antoine, ended up dying during the messing around, and

Anotine’s parents saw Caldwell at fault because they were not in the room to supervise the

students. The court ruled in favor of Caldwell and included that the teacher was not there and had

no ill intentions by leaving the classroom. This could help the school because they could say how

they were not in charge of supervising Ray when he was going to his friend’s house.

A second court case that could favor the school is Johnson v. School District of Millard

(1998). The facts of this case involve a first-grade student who was injured while playing

“London Bridge” in the music teacher’s class. The teacher allowed the students to play on their

own without her, while she wrote on the board, as long as they follow the rules she told them.

The students began getting more aggressive with the game and Johnson ended up hitting a

bookcase after he had asked the other children to stop. The contents of this case could help the

school because of the presence of the music teacher being there to tell the children the rules and

what not to do. Ray was not in the presence of teachers or the school and they could say they

should not be held liable for his own actions when they are not there.
COURT CASE ANALYSIS 4

I do believe that Ray’s parents have reasonable grounds to pursue liability charges against

the school. The school did not go about the right way in notifying his parents of his suspension

and were not aware he was not on their campus. I do see the school as accountable in this

situation and my opinion can be supported by the court case Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City

School District (1978).

COURT CASE ANALYSIS 5

References

Barnett v. Caldwell S17G0641 (2018)

Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City School District L.A. 30857 (1978)

Johnson v. School District of Millard no. S-96-401 (1998)

Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School District No. 12-0794 (2013)