Ray Knight v.

Board of Education 1

Ray Knight v. Board of Education

Nina Spitler

College of Southern Nevada

ABSTRACT

In this case, Ray Knight was suspended from school for having several unexcused absences. The

school district policy is to send a written notice through the mail to the parents when suspending

a student. However, the school failed to follow protocol and instead sent a notice home with the

student. The parents never knew of the suspension and during the first day of suspension Ray

Knight was shot while visiting a friend. With the court cases D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School

Board and Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, I showed how they relate to the

case of Ray Knight and the negligence of the school. They relate in the sense that the school

failed to properly notify parents which resulted in dangerous incidents that the students were

involved in. I also used the court cases Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District and Thomas v.

City Lights School to show that because Ray Knight was in the custody of the parents and not

the school, the school district is not liable. With my understanding so far, I think the Supreme

Court will rule in favor of Ray Knight because the school failed to follow school district

procedures and the parents were not properly notified of his suspension.
Ray Knight v. Board of Education 3

A middle school student, Ray Knight, was suspended from school one day. He was suspended

for three days due to having several unexcused absences. School district procedures require for

the school to notify the parents and send a written notice through the mail. However, Ray Knight

was given a notice to give to his parents but at his convenience, he threw it away before he got

home. Ray’s parents were never notified directly and therefore they were not aware of his

suspension. On the first day of his suspension, Ray went over to a friend’s house to visit. During

his visit, Ray was accidentally shot.

In the first court case, Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, two counselors were

charged with negligence for failing to report plans of a student’s suicide. A middle school

student, Nicole, had made a murder-suicide pact with another student at a different school.

Nicole told friends about her suicide plan and the students reported it to their school counselor,

Morgan. Morgan then consulted with Nicole’s school counselor, Jones. (Eisel v. Board of

Edcuation, p. 2) They interrogated Nicole; however, she denied any comments made. Both

counselors failed to notify Nicole’s parents and on a school holiday Nicole was shot by another

student before the student shot herself. The court ruled the counselors were negligent and should

have reported the suicide plans to her parents. I believe this relates to the court case above

because in both cases the school failed to notify the parents and therefore resulted in the

student’s death.

In the court case D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board, K.C., a middle school student in

Louisiana was sexually assaulted when she was allowed to leave school campus. She was

wearing a skirt that was too short and was informed that she was breaking dress code; she was

instructed to go to the school office and call home so that someone could bring her a change of

clothes. She did as instructed and called home. Her eighteen year old brother was home at the
Ray Knight v. Board of Education 4

time and told her he did not have transportation to bring her new clothes. K.C. told the school

secretary that in order to obtain appropriate clothing she would have to go home and change.

According to the court case, the secretary pushed the sign out sheet towards her and instructed

her to “sign out” against policies of the school district. K.C. signed out at 7:59 a.m. and on her

way home she was sexually molested. (D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Board, p. 4) The parents

were never notified of the situation. The court ruled that the school “was liable for the students’

injury because it owed a duty of care to her that it breached when she was allowed to leave

campus in violation of district policy.” (Underwood & Webb, 2003, p. 105) This case relates to

Ray Knight’s case because in both cases the school failed to notify the parents. The students

were supposed to be under school supervision.

In the court case Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, a middle school student was playing

with another student before school hours. The student ran into a public street and was hit by a

car. The parents filed a law suit against the school for negligence, however, the court ruled that

the school district was not responsible for the injuries caused to the student because “the school

had no duty to supervise or protect a student who was not in the school building and, therefore,

not in the school’s custody or under its control.” (Underwood & Webb, 2003, p. 101) I believe

this court case relates to Ray Knight because just like this situation, Ray Knight was not in the

custody of the school. Therefore, it would not be the school’s fault that Knight was shot since he

was in the custody of his parents.

In the court case Thomas v. City Lights School, Thomas went on a field trip to Zoological Park

in Washington, DC. Thomas stated that during the field trip he was assaulted and beaten by five

other boys when they seemed to be unsupervised. The court ruled in favor of the student in this

case because “a school owes the duty to prevent students from being harmed and from harming
Ray Knight v. Board of Education 5

others while on a field trip.” The school was liable due to “failure to supervise its students while

on the field trip.” (Underwood & Webb, 2003, p. 102) Although the court ruled in favor of the

student, in the case of Ray Knight, the student was not in the supervision of the school. Due to

him being suspended, he was in the custody of his parents and therefore, the school would not be

liable for the death of Ray Knight.

After carefully reading through this chapter and the different court cases, I believe that the court

would rule against the school in the case of Ray Knight. Although the student was suspended, it

is the duty of the school to notify the parents of said suspension. It is school district policy to

send a letter through the mail to notify the parents of the student of a suspension. When the

school failed to send that letter and instead decided to send it home with Ray, the school broke

school district policies and is now liable for the death of Ray Knight. Like in the cases of D.C. v.

St. Landry Parish School Board and Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, the

school did not follow school district protocol which results in negligence from the school.
Ray Knight v. Board of Education 6

REFERENCES

Underwood, J., & Webb, L. D. (2003). School Law for Teachers Concepts and Applications (4th ed., pp. 101-105). Upper Saddle

River, NJ: Pearson Education Inc.

D.C. v. St. Landry Parish School Bd (2001, March 25). In Leagle. Retrieved from

[Link]

Eisel v. Board of Education (1991, October 29). In Leagle. Retrieved September 24, 2018, from

[Link]