ARTIFACT 3

ARTIFACT 3
EDU 210 CSN

STACEY RAMOS
ARTIFACT 3 1

Introduction

In this scenario, a middle school student named Ray Knight is suspended from school for 3

days because he had too many unexcused absences. The school district was required to notify the

parents by telephone and a written notice to be mailed to the parents but failed to do so. Instead

the school sent a note home with Ray who threw it away instead of giving it to his parents.

Because of this, Ray’s parents were not aware that he was suspended and expected him to be at

school the day he was shot at his friend’s house. The question we are asked is do Ray’s parents

have the right to sue the school because of his injury sustained while they expected him to be at

school, and were not properly notified that he would not be. Do Ray’s parents have the right to

sue the school officials? In the next few paragraphs, I will be citing court cases that are pro this

scenario and con, starting with the affirmative.

Pro Support

The first court case I’d like to discuss is in the affirmative with the parents of the victim. Eisel

v. Board of Education of Montgomery County, is a case like the scenario, in that students were

injured because of negligence on behalf of school staff. In the Eisel case, a student spoke to

many classmates about her intention to commit suicide. These classmates notified the counselor

who discussed it with another counselor and then the student. Student denied making these

comments and the issue was dropped without notifying parents or other school members. The

student was later murdered by her friend in an apparent murder/suicide. The incident happened

off school grounds during a holiday, not terribly unlike the scenario. However, the judge ruled in

this case for the parents, stating that “the relation of a school vis a vis a pupil is analogous to one
ARTIFACT 3 2

who stands in loco parentis, with the result that a school is under a special duty to exercise

reasonable care to protect a pupil from harm.” (EISEL V. BOARD OF EDUCATION, 1991)

This negligence on behalf of the school counselors who didn’t notify the parents led to this

student’s suicide, and I believe it is like the scenario in that the negligence of the school officials

led to Ray being shot.

Pro Support

A middle school student’s parents successfully sued the Board of Education of Bergenfield

and the principal of Roy W. Brown Middle School for negligence when the student received

psychological and physical harm from her classmates. This case, known as Hamel v. Bergenfield

Board of Education, et al., is an example that is pro the scenario for a suit was brought against

the school on negligence and was won for the plaintiffs. The student and parents met with the

principal to speak about the constant harassment she received at the hands of her classmates, but

nothing was done. The harassment continued. The judge found the principal and school board

implicit in the damage done to the student and awarded damages to the student and parents. In

the scenario Ray was also harmed due to the result of the school officials not doing due diligence

to keep the student safe.

Con Support

On the con side of the scenario, I have the case Bogust v. Iverson. In this case, a college

student committed suicide shortly after a school counselor terminated sessions with her. After

seeing the student and knowing her “personal, social, and educational problems,” (BOGUST V.

IVERSON, 1960) the counselor had a responsibility to the student as a P.H.D. However, these
ARTIFACT 3 3

responsibilities were ignored and the counselor didn’t notify parents or a psychiatric doctor of

the student’s issues. The parents later attempted to sue the counselor, however they were

unsuccessful. “To hold that a teacher who has had no training, education, or experience in

medical fields is required to recognize in a student a condition, the diagnosis of which is in a

specialized and technical medical field, would require a duty beyond reason." (BOGUST V.

IVERSON, 1960) The trial court upheld the judgement that the defendant was not guilty. This is

like the scenario in that one can decide that it was not negligence on the part of the school

officials for they had no way of knowing what would happen to Ray when he was suspended and

that them being considered responsible for something that happened outside of school grounds

would also require a duty beyond reason.

Con Support

In Lunsford v. Bd. Of Ed. Of Pr. Geo’s Co., a seventh-grade student was assaulted on his way

home from school by a group of his classmates. He was severely injured, and his parents tried to

sue the Board of Education, the principal, and the security officer at the school. They were

unsuccessful in their suit, with the judge stating that “They [Defendants] have a duty, the school

authorities have a duty to exercise reasonable care to look out for the safety of school children

while they're under their control. Somebody sends a child to school, the child ceases at that time

to be under the authority of the parents and is under the authority of the school system. And they

have the responsibility, of using reasonable care, the same responsibility that is analogous to the

responsibility of a parent when they're at home.” (LUNSFORD V. BD. OF ED. OF PR. GEO'S

CO., 1976) This states that since the student was no longer on school grounds the writ of in loco

parentis no longer applies to the school, but to the parents. Even though the scenario is slightly

different. It is still a matter of the parents expecting the school to be responsible for their child
ARTIFACT 3 4

when the school is stating they are not in instances when the student is not presumed to be on

campus. If comparing this judgement with the scenario, one can say that Ray’s parents were

responsible for his whereabouts whether they knew he was supposed to be at school or not, for

they did not get him to school therefore he was still in their care.

Final Paragraph

I believe that I would side with the school board in this scenario, which is the con side. I am

supported by Lunsford v. Bd. Of Ed. Of Pr. Geo’s Co. and Bogust v. Iverson. I believe and am

supported by these cases that a child isn’t the responsibility of the school when not on school

grounds. While I feel the school officials did not follow procedure when a note was not mailed to

the student’s home, I do not feel that the absence of the mailed note directly caused Ray to be

shot by his friend. He was not at school and whether he was expected to be by his parents or not,

the fact that he wasn’t at school means he was still in his parent’s care and they should be

responsible for him and the activities he participated in that day.

ARTIFACT 3 5

REFERENCE PAGE

BOGUST V. IVERSON. (1960, April 5). Retrieved from Leagle:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/196013910Wis2d129_1126/BOGUST%20v.%20IVERSON

EISEL V. BOARD OF EDUCATION. (1991, September). Retrieved from Leagle:

http://www.leagle.com/decision/1991700324Md376_1672/EISEL%20v.%20BOARD%20OF%20E
DUCATION

LUNSFORD V. BD. OF ED. OF PR. GEO'S CO. (1976, September). Retrieved from Leagle:
http://www.leagle.com/decision/1977945280Md665_1893/LUNSFORD%20v.%20BD.%20OF%20
ED.%20OF%20PR.%20GEO'S%20CO.

Underwood, J., & Dean, W. L. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Columbus: Pearson Merrill Prentice Hall.