Running head: THE CASE OF A POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE 1

Portfolio #3

The Case of Possible Negligence

Minh Chau Doan

College of Southern Nevada

Running head: THE CASE OF A POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE 2

Ray Knight was suspended for three days by his middle school for excessive, unexcused

absences. Knight's middle school's notification policy of suspension is to call and give a note to

Knight's parents to inform them of Knight's suspension. Knight was given a note that was

intended to be given to his parents; he decided to throw away the note and did not notify his

parents of his suspension. A phone call was never received by Knight's parents. On the first day

of suspension, Knight decided to go over to his friend's house where he was accidentally shot.

Knight's parents are now considering legal action against the middle school for negligence, but

will the accusation stick?

The first case against Knight's middle school is Eisel v. Board of Education of

Montgomery County. In the case, "The specific question presented is whether the duty

contended for may be breached by junior high school counselors who fail to inform a parent of

suicidal statements..." ( Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 1991). The case

found the counselors negligent of their duties. In the case of Knight, his parents were never

notified by a phone call from the school. As a result, his parents were not aware of their son's

suspension and could have prevented the incident. The similarity between both cases show that

Knight's middle school was negligent with their duty to protect him.

Another case in support of Knight is Brahatcek v. Millard School District. In this case,

David Brahatcek died from an injury from a golf class in school. David did not receive proper

instructions since it was his first time and the instructors did not follow the safety guidelines

presented by the administration. The case was decided in favor of Brahatcek's family due to

negligence by the instructors who should have seen a causation for personal injury (Brahatcek v.

Millard School District, 1979). This is another similar case with Knight. The middle school

failed to follow their own procedures when notifying Knight's parents of his suspension. It can
Running head: THE CASE OF A POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE 3

be reasoned that there is a justifiable causation of Knight's injury due to negligence of the middle

school administration.

There above are strong cases of negligence by the middle school, but there are cases that

are in favor of the school. Consider Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District case where a

seventh grader ran off from the school ground before school started and was hit by a car. Does

the school have a duty to oversee student safety during hours when school is not in operation?

The case brought into question the following idea: "A school district is under no duty to

supervise or protect students who are not in its custody or control, unless it has assumed the duty

to do so by an affirmative act or promise" (Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, 2001).

The court decided that the school was not liable for a student's safety before school hours. It can

be reasoned that since Ray Knight's injury happened off school ground, the school is not liable

for his injury.

Another case in favor of the school is Cave v. Burt where Cave sat on the trunk of a

moving car on school grounds and sustained injuries from the incident. Cave sued the school for

injuries. The court ruled that "appellant [Cave] voluntarily assumed the risks inherent in riding

on the trunk lid of a car...Thus, the doctrine of primary assumption of the risk bars appellant's

claims against appellees [Burt]" (Cave v. Burt, 2004). Knight knew the risks when he chose to

throw away the suspension note for his parents and went over to his friend's house where the

accident happened. It can be reasoned that the injury sustained by Knight was through his own

risky action and does not involve the school as being negligent.

After comparing both sides, Knight's parents have a stronger case against the middle

school. The middle school's lack of alerting Knight's parents can be seen in Eisel v. Board of

Education of Montgomery County as negligence by the middle school. While Knight seems to be
Running head: THE CASE OF A POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE 4

a troublesome student, the middle school should have done everything in its duty to protect

Knight. This also includes following their own notification procedures, which were not followed.

In the Brahatcek v. Millard School District case, the middle school could have prevented

Knight's injury by calling Knight's parents before the suspension period. As a result of the

schools negligence in their duty to Knight, his injury can be seen as a causation of the school's

failure to notify Knight's parents.

Running head: THE CASE OF A POSSIBLE NEGLIGENCE 5

References

Brahatcek v. Millard School District, 273 N.W.2d 680 (1979). Retrieved November 19, 2016.
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1979953273NW2d680_1949/BRAHATCEK%20v.%20
MILLARD%20SCH.%20DIST.,%20SCH.%20DIST.%20

Cave v. Burt, 2004-Ohio-3442 (2004). Retrieved November 19, 2016.

http://www.supremecourt.ohio.gov/rod/docs/pdf/4/2004/2004-Ohio-3442.pdf

Eisel v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, 324 Md. 376 (1991). Retrieved November
19, 2016.http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324Md376_1672/EISEL
%20v.%20BOARD%20OF%20EDUCATION#

Glaser v. Emporia Unified School District, 21 P.3d 573(2001). Retrieved November 19, 2016.
http://www.kscourts.org/cases-and-opinions/opinions/supct/2001/20010420/84726.htm