Portfolio Assignment 3 1

Kara Ozuna

Portfolio Assignment 3

EDU 210

Dr. Isbell

CSN
Portfolio Assignment 3 2

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

because he had too many unexcused absences. To notify his parents about the suspension the

school sent a note home with Ray. Instead of giving the note to his parents Ray threw the note

away and did not inform his parents about his suspension. The school district also has procedures

that they must follow which include a telephone notification and a written notice by mail to the

parents of the child. The school district did not follow either of these procedures. On the first day

of Ray’s suspension, he went over to a friend’s house and was shot accidentally. Now the

questions stand whether the school can be found negligent and whether Ray’s parents have

ground for liability to press charges.

The first case that I will discuss that in favor of Ray Knight’s parents to lawfully pursue

liability charges against school officials for negligence is D.C v. Landry Parish School Board

(2001). In the case, D.C v. Landry Parish School Board (2001), a 12-year-old girl, who was in

seventh grade was sexually molested just eight blocks away from her school campus. She was

told that her skirt was too short and violated school dress code. She went to the school office like

she was told, the school office then contacted her older brother who could not bring her a change

of clothes. The office secretary then told her she would have to go home and change. While K.C.

was walking home she ran into Neil Mark Lewis, who then sexually molested her, eight blocks

away from her school. The court concluded that the school was at fault because there was a

breach of duty and they failed to exercise reasonable care. The school became negligent because

they did not keep the child on school grounds and did not follow procedures. D.C v. Landry

Parish School Board (2001) backs up a liability case for Ray Knight’s parents because the

school did not follow procedure by making a phone call and by mailing a note home. If the

school had made the phone call or sent a notification by mail to Ray’s parents about his
Portfolio Assignment 3 3

suspension, then Ray probably would not have been able to go to his friend’s house and would

not have been shot. Since the school failed to follow through with the proper procedures for a

suspension and the school did not uphold their standard of care duty to Ray Knight. Ray Knights

parents do have the right to liability charges and should pursue this case.

Johnson Johnson v. School District of Millard will be the second case in favor of Ray

Knights case. In this case, Johnson Johnson v. School District of Millard a first grader was

playing London Bridge with two other students. The student was swung “fast and hard”. While

swinging the two children accidentally released their hands and threw Johnson into a bookcase.

This resulted in him to cut his head about his eyebrow. Johnson said he told the students to stop

and he was trying to yell over the music, but everyone was talking and some children were

laughing and singing loudly that the teacher could not hear him. Johnson said that the teacher

was not watching Johnson when he got injured and that she was writing on the board. Other

students said that she was not paying attention. The courts ruled that the teacher was found being

negligent towards her students for not paying attention when Johnson got hurt. In Ray Knight’s

case, the school can be found negligent for not making the phone call or sending a written notice

in the mail. They were negligent because they did not follow procedures and if they had then Ray

Knight might not have gotten accidentally shot.

Albers v. Community Consolidated will be the first case presented to argue Ray Knight’s

parents do not have grounds to pursue liability charges against the school in case. In the case

Albers v. Community Consolidated, a fourth grader was in the gymnasium with the rest of his

class. When they were done rehearsing for the Christmas program Ms. Stein told them to get a

drink, go to the restroom, and go back to their seats in the classroom. While the students were

doing this Ms. Stein stood in an area between her classroom and the restrooms to watch both
Portfolio Assignment 3 4

areas as best as she could. While she was standing there a student had come up to her to tell her

plaintiff had been injured. While she had been standing there for 5 to 10 minutes plaintiff had

said he retired to the gymnasium, the boy and girls were seated on opposite sides of the

classroom. However, a classmate named David was standing in front of the girls. Plaintiff went

over and hit David. David testified that plaintiff had had a piece of aluminum foil which he had

thrown at another student. The other student picked up the foil and started to chase plaintiff.

While plaintiff was running he tripped and was hit in the eye by David’s pencil. Plaintiff

eventually lost sight in that eye. The court concluded that Ms. Stein was not at fault because a

teacher cannot supervise each and every student at all time while in school. This has to do with

Ray Knight’s case because the school is not liable for him because the teachers were not

watching him and he also was not on school grounds.

The case Honeycutt v. City of Wichita (1990) will be the second case in argument against

Ray Knight’s parents pursuing liability charges against the school. In Honeycutt v. City of

Wichita (1990), a 6-year-old boy named Jeremy Honeycutt attended morning kindergarten

classes at Irving Elementary School. Railroad tracks ran on a diagonal between Jeremy’s home

and the school. Most of the time Jeremy’s grandfather walked him to and from school. On day’s

that he could Jeremy’s mother provided him with transportation or arranged a friend to provide

transportation. On March 5, 1987, Jeremey was walking home unsupervised with another

student. While a train was in motion going northeast, Jeremy ran alongside it and either

attempted to touch it or jump on a ladder when the following car struck him. This caused him to

fall under the wheels of the car. Jeremy lost one leg above the knee and the other below the knee.

Jeremy Honeycutt’s actions made him negligent, but according to an Illinois rule, it states that “

a child under seven is not capable of negligence as a matter of law “ This somewhat has to do
Portfolio Assignment 3 5

with Ray Knight’s case because he is a middle school student and he is capable of negligence.

Since Ray threw away the paper stating that he was suspended that he was supposed to give to

his parents means that he his somewhat at fault. If he had given his parents that paper then he

most likely would not have gotten shot. Because of Ray being negligent, Ray Knight’s parents

should have no grounds to pursue liability charges against the school in this case.

My decision in the case is not in favor of Ray Knight. I don’t believe that his parents do

have grounds to pursue liability charges under the cases Albers v. Community Consolidated and

Honeycutt v. City of Wichita. Ray Knight was negligent and if he hadn’t been then he more than

likely wouldn’t have been shot. Under Honeycutt v. City of Wichita Jeremy even though he was 7

was negligent and struck by a train. Since the Illinois rule states that he can not be found

negligent because he is under seven he was not held accountable. However, Ray Knight is in

middle school and should be held responsible for his actions. If he had not thrown away the letter

then he would not have been shot.

ALBERS V. COMMUNITY CONSOLIDATED

https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/2122116/albers-v-community-cons-no-204-school/

D.C. V. ST. LANDRY PARISH SCHOOL BOARD

https://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802so2d191819
Portfolio Assignment 3 6

HONEYCUTT V. CITY OF WICHITA

https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/1992/66-595-3.html

JOHNSON JOHNSON V. SCHOOL DISTRICT OF MILLARD

http://caselaw.findlaw.com/ne-supreme-court/1305437.html