Ray Knight, a middle school student, was suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. Although school district procedures required telephone notification and a prompt written notice by mail to his parents, the school only sent a notice by the student, who threw it away. Thus, Ray's parents were unaware of his suspension. During the first day of suspension, Ray was accidentally shot while visiting a friend's house.
1. Where should fault lie in this case?
2. Do Ray's parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges against school officials? Why or why not?
3. How would failure to follow required district procedures factor into this case?
4. What factors would determine whether Ray's parents are successful in their suit?
5. How do you feel the court would rule in this case? Give a rationale for your response.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1. Fault may lie with the school district who did not follow their procedures for notification by telephone and a written notice.
ReplyDelete2. Ray's parents do have grounds to pursue liability charges against the school. Althought the school could not have predicted or forseen this accideent from happening they failed to follow their procedures. A parent whose child is suspended should expect to receive notification via telephone and a written notice.
3. By failing to follow district procedures that open themselves up to liability.
4. Ray's parents will be successful if they can show that the district did not follow the procedures they had in place.
5. The court would rule in favor of the parents in this case since the district did not follow it's written procedures.
1. The responsibility will probably be that of the school district because the policy for suspension was not followed.
ReplyDelete2. I believe that Ray's parents do have defensible grounds to pursue liability because the school district did not follow the policy and should be held responsible for the safety of the student. As far as the parents were aware, he was at school in a "safe nurturing environment."
3. The liability will be placed on the school district because they did not follow the procedure that was put it place by the school district, one that the parents were informed of and in many cases signed off on their understanding of the policy.
4. As long as they can prove the negligence of the school, they will probably win the case.
5. The court will rule in favor of the parents. Policies are written to protect everyone involved. If someone does not follow the policy then they need to accept the consequence. Unfortunately in this case, maybe of the school would have followed policy, Ray would have been at home or under the care of someone and would not have been shot.
1. The fault will probably be allocated between the school and the student under comparative negligence.
ReplyDelete2. I agree that the parents do have a case to bring against the school. The parents can claim that if they were properly notified then they could have made arrangements for their child to be properly supervised and avoided the injury incurred by their child.
3. The procedures are normally set up in accordance with the legal guidelines set by the courts and written by the school’s legal team to avoid or reduce liability. By not following the guideline the school has failed to provide procedural due process.
4. If the parents can prove that the school was negligent in its act by not providing the student with his due process rights they should be able to establish a strong case against the school.
5. Depending on the age and the maturity of the student, I can only see things going in the favor of the parent of the student. I envision the parent being awarded compensatory damages and possibly punitive damages.