Seth Manesse
Scenario
Ray Knight, a middle school student, was suspended from school for three days due to
excessive absences. School district procedures require that the parents be promptly informed of
the suspension by a mailed written notice and by a telephone notification. The school did not
follow these required procedures. Instead, the only notification of the suspension was a written
notice sent home with the student who threw it away. Because the required notifications were
not given, Ray Knights parents were unaware of the suspension. During the first day of his
suspension, Ray Knight was accidentally shot while visiting a friends house.
The parents of Ray Knight may have grounds to sue their sons school district for
negligence.
Part of a schools duty to its students is to provide adequate supervision. The case of
Gary on Behalf of Gary v. Meche (1993) shows this duty. This jurisprudence establishes a clear
policy that a school board must reasonably supervise the young children in its care.
While under that supervision, it is also the schools duty to protect its students from
foreseeable harm. According to court case Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc. (2000), A
school's duty to supervise its students... is limited to a reasonable duty to guard against
foreseeable harm.
It is foreseeable that unsupervised minors are likely to exercise poor judgement. When
Ray Knight should have been under school or parental supervision, he was instead
unsupervised and handling a firearm. His accidental shooting is a foreseeable possibility. When
Tort and Liability: Portfolio Assignment III 3
the school failed in its duty to adequately supervise Ray Knight it also failed in its duty to protect
The Gary on Behalf of Gary v. Meche (1993) case establishes a schools responsibilities
of supervision and was cited in another court case, D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Bd. (2001).
In the facts of this other court case a student, K.C., was sent home during school hours, a
It is clear that the injury to K.C. occurred during school hours and, therefore, at a time
when K.C.'s actual custody was entrusted to the defendants [Due to] K.C.'s age and
the circumstances surrounding her injury, we find that a causal connection exists
between her lack of supervision and the incident giving rise to her injury. We further find
that the incident would not have occurred but for the absence of the appropriate degree
of care and supervision required under the facts of the case at bar.
K.C. was sent off campus into a dangerous and foreseeable situation. Proper
supervision and care were not exercised in her case. Similarly, Ray Knight was outside of
proper parental or school supervision when he was accidentally shot. The absence of the
appropriate degree of care and supervision by the school makes the school responsible for his
injuries.
Ray Knight was fully aware of his suspension. Although the school did not follow its
established notification process, a notice was sent. Ray Knight was given a written notice and
entrusted by the school to deliver it to his parents. When he discarded the notice, he made a
negligent choice. Through Ray Knights own poor choice his parents were not made aware of
their responsibility for his supervision during his time of school suspension.
In the case of Glaser v. Emporia (2001) a student was injured on the way home from
school.
(T)he injury occurred off school premises and at a time when the student was not on
school property or in school custody. Todd was injured after he ran off the school
grounds, across a parking area and into a city street. The school district never undertook
promise to act, nor was Todd under the control or in the custody of the school district.
Thus, there has been no showing that a student-school district duty existed.
In this case the school was not held responsible for the students injuries because he was off
When Ray Knight was accidentally shot, he was not on campus. Because a notification
of the suspension was sent, his custody was the responsibility of his parents. From this
argument, the school owed no duty to supervise or protect Ray Knight at the time of his injury.
Assumption of Risk:
Cave v. Burt (2004) is a court case in which a student was injured while riding on the
trunk lid of a car. The court found that, by engaging in a dangerous act, the injured student
We agree with the trial courts conclusion that appellant voluntarily assumed the risks
inherent in riding on the trunk of a car. Riding on a cars trunk lid, like rope swinging,
A person engaging in dangerous activities assumes the risks inherent in those activities.
Handling firearms is inherently risky; when Ray Knight and his friend handled a gun they
assumed the consequences of their actions. Accidental shooting is a tragic possibility when
The school can argue that Ray Knight and his friend assumed the risks of handling a
gun. When this type of incident occurs off campus, a school would typically have no liability.
home to his parents will discard the notice. Because established procedures were not followed
by the school, no proper notification was made. If Ray Knights parents were properly made
aware of his suspension, his supervision would have been their responsibility. His parents had
no reason to believe that Ray was not in school. Through the lack of proper notification,
responsibility for Ray Knights supervision during normal school hours remained with the school.
Ray Knight took two irresponsible actions that exacerbated this scenario: first, he
discarded the notice of suspension; second, he handled a gun thereby assuming risk. His
Taking into consideration the schools breach of duty and the foreseeable possibility of
poor judgement of an unsupervised middle school student, but also considering Ray Knights
irresponsible actions I believe the school should be held partially liable. I believe that, due to
References
Cave v. Burt, 2004-Ohio-3442. (2004). Retrieved March 8, 2017 from Justia website:
http://law.justia.com/cases/ohio/fourth-district-court-of-appeals/2004/2004-ohio-3442.htm
D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Bd. No. 00 01304-CA 802 So.2d 19 (2001). Retrieved March 8,
http://www.leagle.com/decision/2001821802So2d19_1819/D.C.%20v.%20ST.%20LAND
RY%20PARISH%20SCHOOL%20BD.?
Gary on Behalf of Gary v. Meche No. 93-271 626 So 2d 901 (1993). Retrieved March 8, 2017
http://www.leagle.com/decision/19931527626So2d901_11394/GARY%20ON%20BEHA
LF%20OF%20GARY%20v.%20MECHE
Glasser v. Emporia USD No. 253 (2001). Retrieved March 8, 2017 from Justia website:
http://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2001/84726.html
Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 707 (D.D.C. 2000) (December 13, 2000).
http://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/124/707/2569586/