Assignment 3
Assignment 3
Assignment/ Artifact #3
Stephanie McElvain
June 23, 2019
College of Southern Nevada
Assignment/ Artifact #3
Ray Knight, a middle school student, was shot during school hours while at a friend’s
house. Knight had been suspended due to unexcused absences, his parents unaware, this incident
occurred on his first day of suspension. School procedure states that the parents of a student who
is being suspended must be informed by two different means of communication. Knights parents
should have been notified by telephone and they should have received a written notice in the
mail. So why were Knights parents unaware of his suspension? The school failed to comply with
either of these regulations, they sent a notice home in the hands of the student who threw it away.
Knight then decided to go to a friends’ house, not telling his parents his whereabouts, after he
was assumed to have gone to school. Can his parents pursue liability charges against the school?
Let’s have a look into a few other cases and their outcomes to obtain some clarity.
In the case of Buzzard v. East Lake School District (1939), a young student had her leg
broken during recess when a male student hit and then ran her over with his bicycle. The
teacher on duty at the time made no attempt to stop the students from riding their bikes and
though she was within 50 feet of the incident, she failed to keep the student from running over
the plaintiff. The plaintiff’s parents then sued East Lake School District for negligence of their
child’s safety at school. The courts found that the teacher was in fact negligent in this case
recovered a fine of $1,500 against the school district for the plaintiff.
Johnson Johnson v. School District of Millard (1998), a student was injured in music
class while participating in a game that went along with the London Bridges song. Two students
would catch and rock another student in beat to the song, after explaining once and warning the
students not to rock their peers to fast or to be to rough in their actions, the teacher turned her
Assignment/ Artifact #3
back to students to write on the blackboard. In the few second that she had her back turned,
Johnson was being violently rocked by his peers before they tossed him into a bookshelf. This
resulted in Johnson receiving a cut above his eye that went through the muscle tissue and down
to the bone. He also experienced blurred vision for a time. So, was this negligence? Yes, the
court ruled against the teacher for not giving adequate instruction and for not supervising the
activity properly. The school district was then set to pay over $21,000 to the plaintiff.
On the opposing side of the argument, a student broke his wrist after tripping over a
bench that had been placed in his running lane during an after-school track meet. In the case of
Andreozzi v. Town of East Haven (2010), the parents attempted to sue for negligence of the
track team coach for not providing a safe environment for the student to participate in this
voluntary after-school activity. However, because this activity was voluntary, it was deemed that
the coach and the town were not negligent in this case.
After reviewing these cases, it is my opinion the Knight family has every right to pursue
liability charges against school officials. The school officials showed complete negligence by not
following protocol, they failed to inform the parents by either means required. The school
officials did not contact the student’s parents by phone, and they did not send a notification by
mail. Instead, they sent a letter home in the hands of the student with no guarantees that it would
REFERENCES
Find Law, (n.d.). Buzzard v. East Lake School Dist. https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ca-court-of-
appeal/1786452.html