Liability Charges

Article #3

Liability Charges

Alexander Bonde-Balutowski

College of Southern Nevada

April 21, 2019

Liability Charges

Abstract

Throughout the following essay, we will cover a scenario in which a middle school

student named Ray was suspended for three days due to unexcused absences. This became a

problem due to the parents not being aware that their student had received a suspension.

Although the school district required telephone notification and a prompt written notice by mail

to the student's parents, the school only sent a notice by the student, who threw it away. Below,

we will explore if the student's parents have defensible grounds to pursue liability charges

against school officials or if the school is not liable for the charges by examining four other

related cases.
Liability Charges

One of the first cases that come to mind when viewing this case is Eisel v. Board of

Education of Montgomery. This case deals with a situation where two school counselors where

charged with failing to use reasonable means to prevent a suicide when they are on notice. A

student had been talking not only to the counselors but also to other students about their plans to

commit suicide and while the teachers asked the students about the questions, which the student

denied, they dropped the topic and failed to inform the parents. The courts took the side of the

parents and agreed that the counselor were at fault for not ensuring that the child's parents where

informed of the current situation. When viewing things from this court case, the parents are fully

able to press charges on the school for failure to contact them about their child's suspension. If

they had proper notification of the suspension, they could have taken steps ensure that the

student was safe and in turn prevented their child being shot.

Now when viewing things from the schools point of view, the case that comes to mind is

Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co. This case covers a situation in which a

school was found not liable when a guidance counselor gave faulty advice regarding National

Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and the student ended up losing a college scholarship.

The Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that it should have been the student's responsibility to be

informed about all the requirements for their scholarship. This case is valuable in backing the

school in this current situation because it would prove that it was the student's responsibility to

present the notice of suspension to his parents. Additionally, it would aid the schools to fight that

the student's actions where their own and could have in no way stopped the student being shot.

On the opposite side of things, a case that comes to mind in aiding the parents right to

press charges on the school is Stain v. Cedar Rapids Comm. School Dist. This case also deals
Liability Charges

with a situation in which a school counselor failed to provide accurate information for their

scholarship. Iowa Supreme court sided with the student, in this case, stating that the school

should have provided the student with the information since they were informed of the

information for the scholarship. The biggest outcome of this case is that the courts ruled that the

school should use reasonable care in providing specific information. In regards to the situation

including Ray, this case would give tremendous backing towards the parents. By neglecting to

ensure that the parents were notified of their child's suspension, the school could be held liable

for neglect toward the student.

Finally, the last case that aids in defending the school is, Collette v. Tolleson Unified

School District. This case deals with a situation in which a student named Zachary Thomason

caused a multi-car accident that injured several other people while driving back to campus after

lunch. Mr. Thomason was in violation of the school's policy of failing to sign out of the school

and have prior permission from his parents to leave. At the end of this case, the school was found

free of Negligence as they are not able to physically restrain a student from leaving school. The

biggest reason that is case helps the school is that it shows an example of how even if the school

had provided proper notification to the parents, the student could have still ended up in the same

situation. Although the school failed in properly informing the parents of the suspension, it was

the student's responsibility to monitor their own safety.

While this is a complicated scenario that the school was forced to deal with, at the end of

the day, I believe the school was at fault. My primary reason for believing that the school was in

the wrong is because they violated their own policy in ensuring that Ray's parents were informed

of his suspension. By making sure that the parents were properly informed this whole scenario

could have been avoided and never taken place.

Liability Charges

Work Cited

324 Md. 376 (1991)- IN THE MATTER OF EISEL v. BOARD OF EDUCATION, Court of

Appeals of Maryland. Retrieved on May 2 2019 from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/infdco20180213664
Liability Charges

262 Wis.2d 127 (2003)- IN THE MATTER OF SCOTT v. SAVERS PROPERTY AND

CAS. INS. CO., Supreme Court of Wisconsin.. Retrieved on May 2 2019 from

https://www.leagle.com/decision/2003389262wis2d1271383

98-2273 (2001)- IN THE MATTER OF Stain v. Cedar Rapids Comm. School Dist,

Supreme Court of Iowa.Retrieved on May 3 2019 from https://caselaw.findlaw.com/ia-

supreme-court/1184826.html

54 P.3d 828 (2002)- IN THE MATTER OF COLLETTE v. TOLLESON UNIFIED

SCHOOL DISTRICT, Court of Appeals of Arizona, Division 1, Department B. Retrieved

on May 3 2019 from https://www.leagle.com/decision/200288254p3d8281875