Running Head: Ray Knight v.

School District 1

Ray Knight v. School District

Nevada School Law

Maci Kesler

College of Southern Nevada

Running Head: Ray Knight v. School District 2

So, here’s the deal. The school district is entitled to provide written notice, via mail and

telephone notifications to the parent when their student is not attending school. Instead, the

school district gave Ray Knight, a middle school student, a written notice, which, of course he

threw away. Due to his attendance, he was suspended for three days, without his parents

knowing. During his suspension, that his parents are unaware of, Ray Knight was mistakenly

shot when he was visiting his friend’s house.

Now, the parents of Ray Knight may say that they school district’s duty was breached.

Under the “Factors to be considered in determining reasonableness” it states; precautions taken

to avoid injury. The school district did not take the proper precautions considering they did not

notify the parents of his absences. Under the “Causation” section, the school district has failed to

recognize the duty to notify Ray Knight’s parents of his absences. The school district did not

notify the parent of his suspension, during which the injury happened.

Also, under “Factors to be considered in determining reasonableness” says; previous

practices and experiences. If the student was inattentive, the school should have foreseen this.

His parents did not know about this and he was doing other things away from his home and

school, while he was not supposed to. Only the school had any idea about. Again, in within the

“Causation” it explains; if there are a series of events leading up to the injury then it is result of

negligence.

On the other hand, in the section “Duty to adequately supervise students” it states; the

school district is only liable when the student is in custody of the school. The school district was

not held liable for the 7th grader who was injured by a car when he ran off school property. Ray

Knight was not on school property or in custody of them; he was not even supposed to be
Running Head: Ray Knight v. School District 3

associated with school that day. It is a result if Ray Knight’s negligence because he failed to

attend.

This is similar to Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District, because the students

injured off of school properties when they are supposed to be on school property. In that case,

the student caused a car accident during skipping for the lunch hour. Ray knight was injured due

to skipping also. This is negligence of the students, not of the school district.

I believe that it is the school districts fault for not informing Ray Knight’s parents of his

absences or his suspensions. I also think that, it is partially Ray Knight’s liability because he was

not even involved with the school that day. The case under the section “Duty to adequately

supervise students”, the Supreme Court ruled that the school district was not liable for the 7th

grade student, who ran into the street and was hit by a car. This is why I think that the Supreme

Court will not hold the school district completely liable, but only partially for failure to inform

that parents. In the section “Contributory and comparative negligence” it states that, the

defendant’s liability is reduced and the injured party doesn’t receive full compensation. I believe

that this is how the Supreme Court will rule this case, with the school district paying for a

percentage of the injury.

Running Head: Ray Knight v. School District 4

Reference List

Collette v. Tolleson Unified School District. (pp.114). Underwood, J., Webb, L.D. (2006). School

Law for Teachers. Pearson Education Inc., Upper Saddle River, NJ.

Underwood, J., Webb, L.D. (2006). School Law for Teachers. Pearson Education Inc.,

Negligence and Defamation in the School Setting (pp. 99-117). Upper Saddle River, NJ.