Running head: ARTIFACT #5 1

Artifact #5; The Case of Ray Knight

Courtney Lichtenwalner
College of Southern Nevada
ARTIFACT #5 2

ABSTRACT
A middle school student named Ray Knight is suspended for unexcused absences. The

school did not award him his proper procedural due process rights upon his suspension. Because

of this, Knights parents were unaware of his suspension and therefore, proper supervision was

not put into place for Knight while he was home. Knight chose to attend a friends home on his

first day of suspension and was accidentally shot. Knights parents believe the school should be

held responsible for this event occurring. In the end, the school is found to be comparatively

negligent because they violated Ray Knights rights to procedural due process and needs to pay

compensatory damages to the Knight family.

ARTIFACT #5 3

Artifact #5; The Case of Ray Knight

A middle school student by the name of Ray Knight was suspended from school due to

unexcused absences. The suspension period was to be limited to three days and Rays parents

were notified of the suspension via a mailed written notice and a phone call per the school

districts procedures. For whatever reason, the school only mailed the notice, and when Ray

retrieved the mail, he promptly threw it away which resulted in Rays parents being unaware of

their sons suspension. During Rays first day of suspension, he chose to visit a friends house,

and was subsequently shot. The shooting was accidental, however, his parents are pursuing

liability charges against the school claiming the school is responsible for not properly alerting

them to Rays suspension.

In this case, the necessary sources to cite first, would be the Fourteenth Amendment, as

well as procedural due process. When a student is suspended, regardless of them violating school

rules, they are still entitled to due process as ruled in the case of Goss v. Lopez. According to

McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014), Recognizing that a students state-created property right

to an education is protected by the Fourteenth Amendment, the Court ruled that such a right

cannot be impaired unless the student is afforded notice of the charges and an opportunity to

refute them before an impartial decision maker. This is basically stating that a student needs to

be notified properly of why they are being suspended, as well as given the change to refute the

charges if necessary. Another source in this case would be reviewing Tort Liability. This means

determining if the school was considered to be negligent. Negligence is a beach of ones legal

duty to protect others from unreasonable risks of harm. (McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p.

20). This would lead into determining if this case had either contributory or comparative

negligence as well. This means considering whether the school could have done anything to

prevent the possible injury, or if they are found to be negligent, how much responsibility would
ARTIFACT #5 4

fall on the school versus the student. All of these sources are important and can be cited within

this case.
Ray Knights parents and attorneys would first like to cite the case of Goss v. Lopez. In

this particular case, nine students from three different schools in Ohio were all suspended. Upon

suspension, the students were not given a hearing from their respective principals to either refute

or accept the charges against them. At the time, Ohio did not have a law stating that the

principals were required to give these students a proper hearing before suspension. However, the

students chose to take the principals and schools to Court and the Court did find that the

students rights had been violated. (Goss v. Lopez. 2015.) Due to this case, there are now

procedural due process rights for student suspensions that have been put into place. This

includes, Oral of written notification of the nature of the violation and the intended punishment.

An opportunity to refute the charges before an objective decision maker (such a discussion may

immediately follow the allege rule infraction). An explanation of the evidence on which the

disciplinarian is relying. (McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 176). Knights attorneys are

arguing that his rights were also violated because proper procedure was not given to him upon

suspension. Knight was notified when he received his notice in the mail, but his parents were not

notified otherwise. The schools own rules stated that notice would be given via a telephone call,

and that did not happen. Knight was also not given a chance to speak on behalf of his unexcused

absences, which were due to a chronic illness. Therefore, Knights suspension was not properly

handled by the school and thus led to his injury off school grounds.
Knights attorneys are also choosing to discuss the schools comparative negligence to his

injury. In the event that Knights parents had been properly informed of their sons suspension,

they would have provided adequate supervision of their son during the time he was to be at

home. Since the parents were not given the required notice of the suspension, the school should
ARTIFACT #5 5

be held accountable for their negligence. As is stated by McCabe, McCarthy, and Eckes (2014),

the plaintiff and/or one or more defendants bear responsibility in proportion to the fault. The

attorneys are choosing to recognize that it was Knights decision to discard of the suspension

notice and his choice to attend his friends home, but that does not mean that the school is not at

fault for the aforementioned reasons. The attorneys state that the school needs to be held

accountable for their not following their stated suspension procedures.

The defendant, Knights school, is choosing to begin their case citing the case of

Maldonado v. Tuckahoe. In this particular case a student by the name of Brian Morris attacked

another student, Bridget Maldonado in her home. One month prior to the attack, Maldonado had

received several death threats from Morris while in school. Both students met with the principal

and discussed the situation, which resulted in Morris being suspended. While Morris was on

suspension, he chose to attack Maldonado in her home. Following the attack, Maldonado sued

the school citing negligence, however, the Court found in favor of the school stating, "Where a

student is injured off school premises, there can generally be no actionable breach of a duty that

extends only to the boundaries of school property. (Bridget Maldonado v. Tuckahoe Union Free

School District. 2015.) This applies to this case because Knights injury was not on school

grounds, nor while he was due to be supervised by a school employee. It is also important to

note, As a general rule, school districts are not expected to protect truant and non-attending

schools. (McCabe, McCarthy, & Eckes. 2014. p. 25). This is incredibly important because

Courts have ruled that students are no longer considered a liability once they are out of the

custody of school officials and during Knights suspension, he was not the schools responsibility

at that time. Therefore, the school is not responsible for his accidental shooting.
ARTIFACT #5 6

The second case that the school would like to address is Collette v. Tolleson. In this case,

a group of students chose to leave their school during their lunch hour. The school had a policy in

place where students that met certain requirements were allowed to leave school grounds as a

privilege at lunchtime. During this particular day though, not all students who chose to leave

were granted the permissions to do so. Upon returning to school, the students were in an

automobile accident and chose to sue the school because it had happened during school hours.

The Court found that there was no breach of duty, and therefore the district was not liable.

(Findlaw. 2015.) This case is crucial to note because while technically certain students were

allowed off-campus for lunch, the schools supervision responsibility stopped at the gate when

they chose to leave school. One important thing that past Court cases choose to focus on includes

whether or not, the events that caused the injury were foreseeable. (McCabe, McCarthy, &

Eckes. 2014. p. 24). There was no way for the school to know that students would be speeding

back and thus result in a car accident. Just like in Knights case now, there was no way for the

school to know that Knight would dispose of the notice indicating his suspension and then his

parents becoming unaware of the situation at hand. The schools responsibility in the case of

Collette v. Tolleson and the case of Ray Knight are one in the same in that it ended as soon as

these students chose to leave school grounds. The schools should not be held responsible for the

actions that took place in either situation.

In conclusion, in the case of Ray Knight, the school is not responsible for Mr. Knights

injury that took place during his suspension, however they are guilty of comparative negligence

by violating Knights procedural due process rights. Under Goss v. Lopez, every student who is

being suspended is entitled to a notice, as well as evidence of why the suspension is taking place,

and a chance for the student to defend themselves. Knight was not granted this right and
ARTIFACT #5 7

therefore the school is found to be 35% guilty, while Knight is 65% guilty. The school is to

award compensatory damages for the medical expenses that Mr. Knight incurred during his

hospital stay and subsequent treatment.

ARTIFACT #5 8

References

Bridgette Maldonado v Tuckahoe Union Free School District. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2015.
FindLaw's Court of Appeals of Arizona case and opinions. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2015.
Goss v. Lopez. (n.d.). Retrieved October 9, 2015.
McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2014). Student Discipline. In Legal rights of teachers and
students (2nd ed., p. 176). Boston: Pearson Education.
McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2014). Tort Liability. In Legal rights of teachers and students
(2nd ed., p. 20). Boston: Pearson Education.
McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2014). Tort Liability. In Legal rights of teachers and students
(2nd ed., p. 24). Boston: Pearson Education.
McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2014). Tort Liability. In Legal rights of teachers and students
(2nd ed., p. 25). Boston: Pearson Education.
McCabe, N., & McCarthy, M. (2014). Tort Liability. In Legal rights of teachers and students
(2nd ed., p. 31). Boston: Pearson Education.