Grounds for liability 1

Grounds for Liability as it pertains to Ray Knight

Bella Sanabria-Roman

College of southern Nevada

Grounds for Liability 2

Abstract

In this paper I examined the factors that go into whether school officials can be held liable for

injury to a student after suspension. In this case I looked at Ray knights parents and the school

officials involved in the case and compared their potential arguments that they have based on

previous court cases. I examined the outcome of court cases and used it to determine if Rays

parents had substantial legal ground to pursue liability charges.

Keywords: tort, court case, education

Grounds for Liability 3

Grounds for Liability as it pertains to Ray Knight

Summary

In this paper I will be examining the case of Ray Knight who was middle school student

that was suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. School district procedure requires

that Rays parents would be notified by telephone and by mail. The school instead sent a notice

with the student who threw it away. This lead to Rays parents being unaware or his suspension.

During his first day of suspension ray was accidentally shot while visiting a friends house.

Arguments

For Ryans parents

Flanagan v. Canton (2009) This will be the first case presented in support of the School

District. In this case Brendan Flanagan was a fifth grade student at Canton Middle School. One

day the students were particularly rowdy.( COsborne) On there way back to the locker room the

teacher was not present and one student had pushed Flanagan from behind which caused him to

fall into a locker and bench. Flanagan developed serious injuries from the event that resulted in

an emergency splenectomy (COsborne) Usually the teacher would accompany the students to

the locker room however in this situation the teacher had been talking to a student for not more

than three to five minutes when the incident occurred. The court ultimately ruled that although

the school needed to supervise students appropriately it is not the insurer of those studentss

safety. The school also went on to state that the school is only liable for foreseeable injuries

sustained by a student (COsborne) The court in this case sided with the student on the grounds

that because the class was being rowdy that day the teacher should have been mindful and
Grounds for Liability 4

supervised the children in the locker room. With the details of the case it can be seen that the

teacher is responsible for following procedure and being mindful a childs circumstances. In the

case of Rays parents calling home and sending a letter particularly because the student

previously had been cutting school should have followed the proper procedure. Since the school

did not follow proper procedure and did not take into consideration the circumstances of the

environment Rays parents maintain the right to pursue liability charges.

For School Officials

Bonamico v. city of Middletown (1998) Is the first case I will be using to argue for the

school officials in this circumstance. Regarding the case Bonamico v. city of Middletown (1998),

the case conclude that the complaint in the present case contains conclusory allegations that the

minor plaintiff was an identifiable person likely to be subject to imminent harm, (Bonamico)

This supports the school officials in that they could not have foreseen the imminent harm that

would come about because of this. Ray was a student who was not an identifiable person that

was likely to be subjected to imminent harm.

The case Glaser v. Emporia (1968) is the second case I will be using in support of

the school officials. In this case the school officials should not be held responsible because the

school is not responsible for supervising children before or after school hours or in this case

during suspension. Ray was not currently in the building and therefore the school officials are

not held liable for any injury that occurred while he was off school property.

Conclusion

Finally, in my conclusion I have decided that the strongest argument falls for the

school district. There seemed to be more court cases that supported the school district. However,
Grounds for Liability 5

perhaps because the circumstances of this case are so severe I could see them going with Rays

parents. They could claim that although the school officials had no control over the

circumstances outside of school by not following procedures they created an unsafe

environment for these things to happen. In conclusion depending on who oversees the case I

could see it potentially supporting both sides.

Grounds for Liability 6

References

C Osborne, J. K. (n.d.). Teacher Tort Liability [PDF]. Udall Shumway & Lyons.

BONAMICO v. CITY OF MIDDLETOWN. (n.d.). Retrieved October 12, 2016, from

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-court-of-appeals/1193243.html

GLASER GLASER v. EMPORIA UNIFIED SCHOOL DISTRICT NO 253 EPP 253. (n.d.).

Retrieved October 12, 2016, from http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ct-court-of-appeals/1193243.html