Case Study 1

Tort and Liability

Giovanna Torres
EDU 210
College of Southern Nevada

Case Study 2

Tort and Liability

Unexcused absences caused Ray Knight, a middle school student, to be suspended for
three days. The school procedures require that school officials call the students parents to
notify them of the suspension, and send a written letter of notice home. The school officials
failed to do so, instead, they sent a notice with the student, who ended up just throwing it
away. The parents were never notified. On the first day of Rays suspension, he went to a
friends house, where he accidentally got shot. Do Rays parents have a sufficient defense to
pursue charges against the school officials?
Rays parents have the right to be upset, and to feel like this could have been prevented
with a phone call or a written notice. This is educational and professional malpractice in the
schools part. In the case of Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, the school
counselors failed to communicate with the parents of the students who had a serious issue with
each other. The counselors asked the students about the statements made to each other, and
they denied it all, so the counselors left it alone. What they should have done was contact the
students parents and taken action the way any serious matter is approached.
In Stain v. Cedar Rapids Comm. School District a counselor gave inaccurate information
to a student, which caused the student to lose out on a college scholarship by a third of a
credit. This student was not allowed to participate in Division I basketball which, he worked so
hard for. The court sided with the student claiming that the high school counselor had a
responsibility to his students, as well as the school officials that dealt with the suspension of
Ray Knight. They are to have knowledge of specific information that they provide to the

Case Study 3

students, and they should be aware of the protocols, rules, procedures, and agreements when
dealing with serious matters.
On the contrary, in the case of Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co., the
student was also misadvised by a counselor. The court ruled against the student and stated that
the school district is not liable for educational malpractice. The counselor gave faulty advice
regarding eligibility requirements to the NCAA, and it also resulted in the student losing out on
a college athletic scholarship. So, who really is at fault here?
Most people might say that any event that occurs outside of school property is not a
responsibility of school officials. Yes, the parents didnt receive a notice about the suspension
by school officials, but the choice of their son to throw the notice away, and head to his friends
house was made by his own will. In the case of Scott E. MacFarland v. Tolleson Unified School
District, an incident occurred where a student left school, and caused an accident with a
motorist. The motorist made a claim against the school district for injuries he suffered during
his accident. The judge ruled in favor of the school district stating that legal relationship
between district and its student did not impose a duty upon the district to control
Student.
I believe that Ray made a bad decision to uninform his parents of his suspension, and
using that as an excuse to go elsewhere. However, I believe that it could have been prevented
from the beginning if the school officials hadnt failed to follow the procedures required to
inform the parents. Rays parents should pursue liability charges against school officials. What

Case Study 4

happened to Ray, was not the schools fault, but not following procedures was. I feel that they
would have a strong claim against the school.

Case Study 5

References
Underwood, Julie., Webb, L. Dean. (2005). School Law for Teachers: Concepts and applications.
P.108-109

Pearson Education. (2003). Welcome to the Companion Website for School Law for Teachers:
Concepts and Applications. Retrieved from
http://wps.prenhall.com/chet_underwood_schoollaw_1/42/10992/2814028.cw/index.html