Portfolio 3
Portfolio 3 Assignment
Karina Solovieva
College of Southern Nevada
Portfolio 3
In this scenario a student named, Ray Knight, had three unexcused absences at his middle
school. Due to this, the school suspended the student for three days. In this case the school is
required to notify the parents of the suspension by a phone call and a written notice mailed to the
house. The school only gave a written notice to the student, which was discarded by Ray, leaving
his parents unaware about the suspension. In the first day of the suspension Ray was accidentally
shot while he was at his friends house. This scenario produces a question of whether Rays
parents have defensible grounds to pursue a liability charges against the middle school officials.
Supporting ground for Rays parents to file liability charges against the school officials is
negligence to follow proper conduct in notifying about the suspension. If the parents were
properly notified then they would be aware of their sons whereabouts. In Hoyem v. Manhattan
Beach City School District a boy left school grounds before the end of school day. While off
school grounds but during school hours he is seriously injured by a motorcyclist. As a result, his
mother suffer emotional damage. In this case the court has to decide whether the school is liable
for this damage due to negligence of appropriate supervision of the student. Although schools are
not liable for students off school grounds, in this case the court ruled in favor of the mother,
deciding the school was liable for the emotional damage. Even through this case turned out in
favor of the plaintiff the court doesnt not always rule that way.
Even though the school failed to properly inform the parents of the suspension, Rays
parents must show that it was the schools negligence that caused the injury. In Piphus v. D Carey
students were suspended from school for eight days in one case and seventeen days in another
case, without proper procedure due process. The students tried to show how missing so many
days of school took away from their value in education in support of their damage claim.
Although, the court agreed that the plaintiffs did not receive the proper procedure due process,
Portfolio 3
the court did not award the students for the damage, due to lack of evidence supporting their
claim. (545 F. 2d 30 - Piphus v. D Carey People United to Save Humanity)
In another case, Kabylanski v. Chicago Board of Education, Barbara Kabylanski suffered
spinal injuries as a result of her falling during an exercise called knee hang in her gymnasium
class at Mark Twain Elementary School. On her behalf, her father claimed that her gymnasium
instructor negligently failed to provide proper instructions. This claim was denied by the
instructor. The court ruled the Kabylanski has failed to prove the defendants misconduct.
(KOBYLANSKI V. CHICAGO BD. OF EDUCATION)
In conclusion, the school did not follow proper procedure in notifying the parents of
Rays suspension, which potentially led to rays death. In defense of the school officials this
happened off school grounds. This scenario also arises the question whether it can be proven that
it is due to the schools negligence that caused Rays accidental death at his friends house. I
believe because of the schools breach of duty the court would rule in favor of the parents
emotional damage. Although, I believe this ruling would happen if it is proven that the accident
happened due to the schools negligence. I believe this because in most cases that I reviewed for
this assignment, the plaintiffs lost due to deficiency of evidence supporting their claim.
Portfolio 3
References
Hoyem v. Manhattan Beach City Sch. Dist., 585 P. 2d 851 - Cal: Supreme Court 1978. (n.d.).
Retrieved September 22, 2015, from
http://scholar.google.com/scholar_case?case=12384492477649213529&q=breach of duty in
schools&hl=en&as_sdt=6,29
KOBYLANSKI V. CHICAGO BD. OF EDUCATION. (n.d.). Retrieved September 22, 2015,
from https://casetext.com/case/kobylanski-v-chicago-bd-of-education
545 F. 2d 30 - Piphus v. D Carey People United to Save Humanity. (n.d.). Retrieved September
22, 2015, from http://openjurist.org/545/f2d/30
