Running head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 1

EDU 210 Portfolio Artifact #3

Jessica Brooks

CSN Online Campus

Running head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 2

The school has an obligation to ensure that the student and their family are both informed

about the student’s safety. In the school’s protocol, it ensures that when a student is suspended

the parent is informed by a telephone notification and a prompt written notice by mail to his/her

parents. By following protocol the school can ensure the safety of the student and relieve the

responsibility of the school s liability for the student. In the following scenario, a student has

been given a three-day suspension that has only notified the parent of the suspension via written

note, which the student threw away. The parents were not contacted by a telephone notification

at all by the school. The student Ray Knight was later shot by accident while visiting his friend’s

house on the first day of his suspension. By the school not informing the parents with the correct

protocol the school is still made liable for the student’s untimely death.

In a similar court case Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District a student left school

using the incorrect protocol of signing out for an off-campus lunch. The school did have protocol

in place to monitor who came and left from the school; however, the student was able to by-pass

the security and leave campus. On the way, back to school the student got into a car crash which

resulted in several motorists to be injured. The motorists sued the school for not following

protocol of the students who left the school to have an off-campus lunch, given that there were

time constraints that made Thomas, the driver, rush back to school causing him to crash the

vehicle. The motorists claim that the District directly injured them because they forced Thomas

to rush back to school under the lunch time limit; however, the court claims that it was not the

District that directly injured the party it was Thomas who was a third party. The court affirmed

that Thomas did not increase the ordinary risk of vehicular harm to the motorist, had he gained

the proper permission to leave campus. The trial is similar that the students were injured for not

using the correct protocol of the school for leaving and still left. Ray Knight did not encounter an
Running head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 3

increase of ordinary risk had his parents been notified of his suspension. The Risk of going to his

friend’s house would not have been increased or decreased had the school notified his parents. In

conclusion, the school is not liable for Ray Knight’s death because his risk of going over to his

friend’s house would have remained the same had the school not notified his parents.

The District should not be held accountable for students off school campus because

students tend to sneak away. The nature of students is to sneak off campus whenever they can. In

the court case Leeann Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School District a minor D.E. was in

a relationship with a boy M.F. who is stated in the court case. D.E. is a female student who was

in the special education program with an IEP, her boyfriend M.F. was a typical peer. Teachers

had no worry to suspect that D.E. was in any danger with him. One day the students left class

early and went to M.F.’s house where they were soon bored and later went to his friend’s house

that lived down the street. The students again did not have permission from the school to skip

class. The students then went to V.M.’s house where he said they could hang out in his garage.

M.F. then raped D.E. while V.M watched from a window and shot a BB gun at D.E. Later in the

trial the court dictated that the school was not held responsible because the students were not

marked absent from their sixth period class and a telephone automated system would then notify

the parents of the missed class periods. Mitchell, the individual speaking on behalf of D.E.

thought that the school should have taken more measures to inform her of D.E.’s missed

appearance in her sixth period knowing that the student had an IEP. The court saw it fit to

describe that students tend to sneak out of school unsupervised and in the actions, that harmed

D.E. was off campus as she left voluntarily. Like the case of Ray the student left voluntarily

without parental consent to go to his friend’s house where he then sustained a gunshot wound.

This case gives cause that the school is not held liable because the student willingly left school
Running head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 4

and on the first day of suspension knew the risk of going over to his friend’s house where he was

shot.

The school may be held liable for injuries that a student suffered were held off campus or

after hours if the injuries were based on the school’s negligence of the student. This concept is

shown in the Perna v. Conejo Valley Unified Sch. Dist. (Ct.App.1983), where two sisters were

held after school to help grade papers and later walked home and were struck by a vehicle in the

crosswalk. The school’s crossing guard was supposed to stay at the crosswalk till 3:30pm and the

students walked across the street and were struck at 3:15pm. The negligence of the school caused

them to be held liable for the two girls’ injuries because there was supposed to be a crossing

guard provided until 3:30pm. The school did not use the correct protocol to ensure that the girls

would return home safely, in result they were held liable for the girl’s injuries. In the scenario

case of Ray the school does hold a standard for informing the parents and taking all precautions

to ensure that the student will be safe if they are left at home. The school failed to do so, so they

are then held liable for the injuries that Ray has sustained.

In similar light the court case of Gary V. Meche (La.Ct.App.1993), where a six-year-old

boy ran out into the street and ran into a truck. The student then went to the office to wait for his

mother, the boy then left the school ground and went to his friend’s house that was down the

street from the school. The mother of the friend sent the boy back to the school where he was

then hit by a car and killed. The school was then held liable for the death of the little boy because

their policy stated that a young child could not leave school unattended. This shows how the

boy’s age would show that he was immature to listen to an adult’s orders and should have been

supervised by an adult so he would not leave school grounds. This risk could have been

prevented by direct supervision of a child. Like the court case about Ray who threw the written
Running head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 5

explanation of his suspension away. His age should have given the school warning that he would

have thrown away the note and not given it to his parents. The school should be held liable for

his death because they did not take the correct protocol to inform the parents about his

suspension; therefore, leaving the child unsupervised and violating their policy.

At the end of the day the school has a duty to inform parents of the behavioral and

academic problems of the students. The school obtains policies to ensure the safety of the

students, and to break the policies does not relieve the liability of the school for the student’s

safety. Like the court cases of Gary v Meche and Perna V Conejo Valley Unified School District,

the schools failed to relieve their liability of the student. The protocol for watching a student and

failure to inform the parents about student who had become suspended. The schools must follow

protocol no matter what, so that when an incident happens they have already taken the correct

measures to know that they provided the best alternative and were not liable for any misfortunes

that may have happened. The school in the scenario did fail to notify the parents of Ray’s

suspension which sadly resulted in him being shot at a friend’s house, in turn making the school

liable for his death.

Running head: EDU 210 PORTFOLIO ARTIFACT #3 6

Reference

Cady, C.J. “Findlaw for Legal Professionals” Mitchell v. Cedar Rapids Community School

District, Thomas Reuters. 2013, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-supreme-

court/1635949.html

Casetext. Gary on Behalf of Gary v. Meche, 626 So. 2d 901 (La. Ct. App. 1993)

https://casetext.com/case/gary-on-behalf-of-gary-v-meche

Garbarino, W. “Findlaw for Legal Professionals” Collette V. Tolleson Unified School District

NO 214, Thomas Reuters. 2002, https://caselaw.findlaw.com/az-court-of-

appeals/1291266.html

Stone, P. “FindLaw for Local Professionals.” Findlaw, Thomas Reuters. 1983,

https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-appeal/1839914.html