Artifact #3 1

Artifact # 3

Court Cases

Guadalupe Lopez Guiza

College of Southern Nevada

April 21, 2019

Artifact #3 2

Ray Knight is a middle school student and he was suspended for three days because of

unexcused absences. The school district procedures require a telephone notification and a written

notice send by mail. The school district failed to send a written notice by mail and a telephone

notice. The school district did send a notice by giving it to the student, which he threw away.

Therefore, the parents of Ray Knight did not know he was suspended. As a result, during the first

day of Ray’s suspension, he was visiting a friend’s house where he was accidentally shot.

Glaser v. Emporia USD No. 253, 21 P.3d 573 (Kan. 2001), is the first case in favor of the

school district. This is a personal injury action brought on behalf of Todd Glaser. Todd Glaser

was a seven-grader at Lowther Middle School in Emporia, Kansas. He was chased by another

student, he ran off school grounds into a public school. He was injured in a collision with a car.

The person driving the car was Patricia Gould-Lipson. Glaser settled his claim against the driver,

and the district court granted summary judgment in favor of Emporia School District. This case

supports this side of the scenario because both the children were outside of school property.

Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co., (2003). This is the second case in

favor of the school district. Ryan Scott and his parents, alleged that Dave Johnson, a guidance

counselor at Stevens Point Area Senior High School, provided them with incorrect information

about a scholarship. As a result, Ryan Scott lost the scholarship and other expenses incurred. The

Scott’s filled a motion based on negligence, breach of contract, and promissory estoppel. The

Wisconsin Supreme Court ruled that a school district is not liable for educational malpractice.

This case supports this side of the scenario because the staff of the school were the ones that

failed to communicate with the parents of Ray Knight. The district was not involved and under

the same accusations in both cases the court could rule that the school district is not liable for

educational malpractice.
Artifact #3 3

Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 707 (D.D.C. 2000) is the first case in

favor of Ray Knight parents. Around May 11, 1998, plaintiff visited the natural Zoological Park

in Washington, D.C., While on the field trip with his school. Plaintiff alleges that during the field

trip he was assaulted, kicked and beaten by five male students that were on the field trip too. The

students attended City Lights, a private, non-profit charter school under District of Columbia

law, for at-risk youths. In the plaintiff statement, he said that the students were unsupervised.

Plaintiff suffered a concussion and injuries in multiple areas of his body. Plaintiff filed a lawsuit

in the Superior Court of the District of Columbian based on one count of negligence supervision

against City Lights and one count of assault against each of the five students. This case supports

this side of the scenario because both schools did not provide the proper car for the students. As

a result of the school lack of responsibility the students suffer accidents.

Spaid v. Bucyrus City Schools, 760 N.E.2d 67 (Ohio App. 2001). This is the second case

in favor of Ray Knight parents. Adrienne and three other school council volunteer members were

asked to oversee and supervise the Track and Field Day. In the event, participant would throw

discus from the discus pit. Adrienne was responsible for recording the distance of each throw.

There was no adult supervision at the event. The elementary students were asked to stand behind

a chain link fence during the event. Adam Stoner would show the elementary students how to

throw the discus using the full “spin and throw” method, opposed to the less difficult method

“stand and throw.” An elementary student entered the pit and threw the discus. Adrienne heard

some scream watch out and he looked up. The discus hit him between his lower lip and chin.

Adrienne suffered injured to her lower lip, lower three front teeth, and lower gums. This case

supports this side of the scenario because the children were given order but weren’t supervised
Artifact #3 4

during the event which caused injuries on a student. This includes Ray Knight because he was

told that he was suspended only letting the student know and not the parents.

Based on the cases I believe that Ray Knight parents have defensible grounds to pursue

liability charges against the school officials. As mention in the first paragraph, the school district

procedures require a telephone notification and a written notice send by mail. The school

officials did not follow procedure at all. The only notice that was send to the parents was given

to Ray Knight’s, who did not give the notice to the parents. Based on Thomas v. City Lights

School, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 707 (D.D.C. 2000), Thomas was on a field trip with his school

when he was assaulted by five students from a charter school, Thomas stamen said that the

students were unsupervised. Based on this file the parents of Ray Knight can file a suit based on

negligence of lack of communication against the school officials. Another case that supports

Ray’s parents is Spaid v. Bucyrus City Schools, 760 N.E.2d 67 (Ohio App. 2001), Students

volunteer were helping out during Field Day, and one was injured. Instructions were given to the

student volunteer on how to do the activities. The volunteers did not follow the methods of the

activity and they were unsupervised and resulted in one student getting hurt. This case supports

Ray’s parents because the school officials of Bucyrus City Schools were not there to supervised

that the volunteers where doing as told and the school officials of Ray school weren’t present to

know if Ray have given the notice to his parents. So, yes Ray’s parents have defensible grounds

to pursue liability charges against the school officials.

 Artifact #3 5

Resources

Glaser v. Emporia USD No. 253, 21 P.3d 573 (Kan. 2001). Retrieved on April 17, 2019.

https://law.justia.com/cases/kansas/supreme-court/2001/84726.html.

Scott v. Savers Property and Casualty Insurance Co., (2003). Retrieved on April 17, 2019.

https://law.justia.com/cases/wisconsin/supreme-court/2003/16560.html.

Spaid v. Bucyrus City Schools, 760 N.E.2d 67 (Ohio App. 2001). Retrieved on April 19, 2019.

https://cases.justia.com/ohio/third-district-court-of-appeals/2001-ohio-2171.pdf?ts=1396139304.

Thomas v. City Lights School, Inc., 124 F. Supp. 2d 707 (D.D.C. 2000). Retrieved on April 17, 2019.

https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/FSupp2/124/707/2569586/.

Underwood Julie, & Webb L. Dean. (2006). Teachers’ Rights. In School Law for Teachers. Upper

Saddle River: Pearson Education.