Running head: PORTFOLIO 3 1

Portfolio 3

Jordan L. Marzka

College of Southern Nevada

PORTFOLIO 3 2

Ray Knight was a middle school student who had been suspended from school for three

days. He was suspended due to unexcused absences. Although he had been suspended his own

parents did not know because the school only sent a letter via Ray which he himself threw away.

The school district policy however is a required telephone call to the house as well as a written

notice by mail. These mistakes are made clearer because of Rays first day of suspension. He was

shot while visiting a friend’s house. Rays parents want to know if they have defensible grounds

to pursue liability charges against school officials.

As the book School law for teachers states on page 106 “In order to sustain a claim of

negligence, the plaintiff must show an actual loss or real damage. The loss may take many forms.

Injuries may be tangible or intangible. In some situations, an intangible injury is sufficient for

recovery period however, some states require at least a physical manifestation of an injury, if

there are no tangible injuries. If proven, monetary compensation may be awarded for intangible

injuries”. All that is to say there must be signs of injure in some way or fashion and be proven to

show negligence for compensation. For Mr. Knight and his family, the case of Eisel V. Board of

education of Montgomery county states that the court found two school counselors negligent in

failing to communicate to a parent a student's suicidal statements made to other students and to

them. This can much correlate to their situation as that the parents were not properly

communicated that their child was suspended from school and proceeded in Ray Knight being

hurt.

The second court case that helps the Knight’s is Aalbers V. community consolidated

school in which it stated that the standard expects teachers to do a better job of protecting

students from injury than an average person. In saying this you can also use that nor teacher no

faculty member looked out for this student well-being. Not making sure that his parents fully
PORTFOLIO 3 3

understood that he was suspended for three days marked that he was unsafe because of the

parents unknowing this and of the faculty and teachers lack of making sure his parents knew.

Now, the first case that would go against the Knight’s would be Scott v. Savers property

and casualty insurance Co. in which it states the Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a school

district is not liable for educational malpractice when a guidance counselor gave wrong advising

to a student. In saying this you can construe this into showing that even though the proper

procedures were not followed the school still gave out a proper notice stating that Mr. ray knight

was suspended for school and thus not their fault because he did not show it to his parents.

The second case not in favor for the Knights would be Spade versus burcyrus City

Schools. the case states that according to the court immunity extended only to the board type of

discretions involving public policy made with the creative exercise of political judgment. Now in

saying that the school can use this for their benefit saying that they themselves although having

the policy may not be held accountable just because it did not be properly followed through. This

is not to say that someone is not at fault but rather saying that the school district and the school

themselves cannot be sued for something that happened from someone within their

administration and not the company as a whole pes say.

In conclusion I feel now with the court case is presented and with all the evidence shown

that the nights are unfortunately in the wrong. I do not feel they would have a strong enough case

to make against the school district. I feel that if they did try to go to trial it would immediately

get shut down because regardless of the fact that the popular policies did not get followed an

attempt was made. An attempt was shown through the school’s way and it was ultimately up to

Mr. Ray night's fall that he did not show that paper to his parents. Because of this it is his fault

and his fault alone that I believe he unfortunately got shot. Regardless of what might happen
PORTFOLIO 3 4

regardless if he showed that piece of paper to his parents there is still possibility that he would

have still went out and got shot. And in saying that I just still believe it is not the school’s fault

for that happening. I feel there are many other factors when it comes to something of that

scenario but regardless of what I feel the facts shown to me I can safely conclude that I agree

with the state in disagree with the family. Ray Knight's parents do not have a defensible ground

to pursue a liable charge against the school officials.

PORTFOLIO 3 5

References

Eisel v. Board of Education, 324 Md. 376, 597 A.2d 447 (Md. 1991)

Sain v. Cedar Rapids Cmty. Sch. Dist. - 626 N.W.2d 115 (Iowa 2001)

Scott v. savers property and casualty insurance com., Cir. Ct. No. 00-CV-286 (Wisconsin 2003)

Spaid v. Bucyrus City Schools, 144 Ohio App. 3d 360, 760 N.E.2d 67 (Ohio Ct. App. 2001)

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: concepts and applications.
Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.