Artifact 3

Rachel Kramer

EDU 210 Nevada School Law

Dale Warby

24 September 2018
 1

After Ray Knight, a middle school student was suspended for three days because of
unexcused absences, he was accidentally shot while visiting a friends house during his first day
of suspension. Ray’s parents were unaware of his suspension, because the school district failed
to notify them with a written notice by mail and telephone. The school district only sent notice
via the student who threw it away.
Based on Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co., Ray’s Parents do have
defensible groups to pursue liability charges against school officials. The school failed to notify
Knight’s parents of his suspension, or even prior of his amount of unexcused absences. The
school originally failed to notify the parents that this student had an abundance of unexcused
absences and what the consequences could potentially be. When finally taking action, the school
still failed to inform the parents of Ray’s suspension, ultimately leading to him accidentally
being shot while visiting a friend. Had the parents been aware of his suspension, this could have
been prevented.
According to Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery, another case where the
school failed to notify parents concerning the safety of a student, Ray’s parents have defensible
ground. Like Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery, the school neglected to inform the
parents, leading to the injury of their child. It is the schools responsibility to inform parents of
any issues concerning a child, from a student’s mental state, to their number of absences. The
school is ultimately responsible for the student’s safety.
Established on Glaser vs. Emphoria Unified School District, the school is not
responsible for Knight accidentally being shot while visiting a friends house. Ray was not on
school grounds and therefore the school is not liable for what actions happened or occured. The
school is only responsible for students during school hours and on school property. Although the
accident happened while the student was under the schools suspension, he was not on school
property. The school is not responsible for his injuries.
After Flynn. V. Reichardt, the school district cannot be sued by Ray’s parents. The
school is protected against defamation and damages within its own process. The school was not
the cause of Ray being accidentally shot, this could have happened any day. This could have
even taken place on the weekend. The school is still not responsible for what the student does on
their own time off of school grounds. Had this happened on school grounds during school hours,
this would be another story. The school is not there to supervise children who are not at school.
After reviewing each case, I have decided that the parents have the grounds to sue the
school. They have the right to sue the school because the school failed to notify them of the
suspension of their son, Ray Knight. Had the school informed the parents, this could have been
prevented, seeing that the student would be in trouble and stuck at home out of harm’s way. On
the other hand, I also think that the school is not at fault, because the shooting could have
happened, suspension or not.The student was not on school grounds and therefore the school had
no way of preventing the situation.
 2

References

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2006). School law for teachers: Concepts and applications.
 3

Upper Saddle River, NJ: Pearson/Merrill Prentice Hall.