In this case, Ray Knight’s parents (plaintiffs) are seeking liability compensation against the School District (defendants) for the alleged negligence of their son’s middle school. School officials gave Ray Knight a three day suspension for unexcused absences. Although, the School District’s policy is to give parents phone notification and written notification through the mail for student suspension, Knight’s middle school officials sent the written notice home with Knight. In an attempt to hide the information from his parents, Knight crumpled the notification and disposed of it away. On the first day of his suspension, Ray Knight was killed while visiting a friends home. His mother and father were both unaware that Knight was serving …show more content…
Stiles in rebuttal to the Plaintiff’s claim that the defendant created the danger. In Sanford v. Stiles, a school district was sued for alleged negligence under the argument that the state created a danger. In this case, sixteen year old Michael Sanford wrote a note to his ex-girlfriend, Karen Martin, in which he questioned her about another boy and voiced suicidal jargon. Sanford wrote, “I’ve heard 3 diff[erent] stories about you & Ryan. The one I heard almost made me want to go kill myself” (“Find Law,” 2015). Martin did not really believe Sanford was suicidal, but concerned about what he said and in attempt to get him to leave her alone, Martin contacted her school guidance counselor with the note. The counselor gave a copy of the note to Sanford’s guidance counselor, Pamela Stiles. Stiles immediately called Sanford in for a meeting where she proceeded to ascertain Sanford’s state-of-mind and if she could detect any suicidal tendencies. After meeting with Sanford, Stiles was satisfied that he seemed positive, had plans for his future, with no intent to harm himself. Soon after, Sanford made one more appearance in his guidance counselor’s office to question who she had received the note from. Citing confidentiality, Stiles did not give Sanford the name. That same night, Sanford committed suicide. The Plaintiffs in this case argued a negligence claim in that the state created the danger that escalated the risk of Sanford’s decision to commit suicide. The Supreme Court held the District Courts decision that the Plaintiff’s negligence claim failed to prove that Stile’s actions caused Sanford’s suicide; stating, “Specifically, no reasonable jury could find (1) that Stiles acted with the requisite degree of culpability, or (2) that she "create[d] an opportunity that otherwise would not have existed for [harm] to occur” (“Google Scholar,” 2015). Equivalently, Ray Knight’s school officials did not act in a
May it Please the Court, This is a case concerning Suzie, a seventeen-year old student at Central High School in Bristol, Virginia, as well as her boyfriend Cyrus. Suzie sent Cyrus some revealing photos which Cyrus forwarded to some upper class boys in school. Their principal, Mrs. Sheevers, confronted Cyrus but Cyrus denied what he had done. The principal then told the school’s security officer to frisk Cyrus for his phone.
The case of Lawrance Nealson The car breaks down somewhere outside Sacramento by a small lake and a motel on it 's death bed. Marlene doesn 't sleep, so while Lawrence crashes in a worn out bed she sits on a sun bleached dock stretching into the dark lake. She sits out there for what could be five minutes or an hour (she was never good with time) before Lawrence comes out. He drops down next to her and lights a cigarette, smoke clouding around his face and feet moving around in the water. Marlene looks over at the boy who is still so, so young at only 18 and feels a bitterness for herself.
INTRODUCTION Defendant Ms. Kalani Herrera ("Ms. Herrera") respectfully request the court grants Ms. Herrera 's motion for summary judgment and dismiss the plaintiffs, Mr. And Mrs. Malone 's ("Malones") personal injury claim. The Malones have a brought a personal injury lawsuit against Ms. Herrera under the attractive nuisance doctrine on behalf of themselves and their daughter Maria Malone ("Maria"), a minor who was injured on an a peace of land art while trespassing on Ms. Herrera 's property. However, the plaintiffs have failed to establish elements that are pertinent to the claim. Landowners typically owe no duty to trespassers however, the doctrine of attractive nuisance is an exception to
Nabozny v. Podlesny (1996) was a case heard in the United States Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit regarding the protection of a school student in Ashland, Wisconsin, who had been harassed and bullied by classmates because of his sexual orientation. The plaintiff in the case—Jamie Nabozny—sought damages from school officials for their failure to protect him from the bullying. A jury found that this failure violated Nabozny's constitutional rights and awarded him $962,000 in damages.[1][2] Contents [hide] 1 Background 2 The case 3 Reception and significance 4 References 5 External links Background[edit] Jamie Nabozny (born October 1975) went to the local public middle school in the small Wisconsin town of Ashland, where his parents
Peter’s personal interaction of his political speech does not need to be taken into consideration. Here case law supports the school’s preemptive measures because the flag could be interpreted in a racial way that can cause a foreseeable issue. Adding to this, the second case, Scott v. School Board (2003), argued in the 11th circuit court that one cannot ban political speech if there is no prior recording of significant issues with this speech. However, it was found that even a single instance of racial problems or significant racial tension is grounds to claim a reasonable forecast of problems. Again, the ruling is relevant to the 7th circuit court because the arguments still bring up valid points that could
Ray Rice was a star running back for the Baltimore Ravens in the NFL when a video of him brutally attacking his then-fiancé, now-wife Janay Palmer, was released by TMZ. The Ravens organization and the NFL took a number of steps to address the situation to avoid a crisis situation. While the NFL handled this case better than other organizations have handled other crisis situations, there are some gray areas where the NFL could have done a much better job addressing the situation (Natta & Valkenburg, 2014). On February 15, 2014, Rice and Palmer were both arrested and charged on simple assault, however the details of the assault were unclear, but Rice’s attorney described it as a minor altercation.
The school year my senior year has improved for both students and teachers releasing stress that the board had caused for the district. Along that, a new administration was set forth because of the sacrifices that our teachers have made to improve the quality of education for Arvada High School. But I felt that this incident had a point to show that people should pay more attention to their community and not stray ignorant of the things happening around them. I knew that that was the cause the led this situation with the board
Topic: In the 1970’s, many schools operating in Dade County used corporal punishment as a form of punishment for misbehavior. A male student attending a Dade County Junior High School was forcibly restrained and paddled after failing to allegedly adhere to school policies. The student claimed that the paddling of students as a means of maintaining school discipline constitutes cruel and unusual punishment, violating the Eighth Amendment; Issues: (1) Was it unconstitutional for the school to administer corporal punishment under the Eighth Amendment? (2) Did the school’s principal and vice principal violate the student’s Eighth Amendment by restraining him during punishment? (3) Under the Fourteenth Amendment, was the principal required
Matt Farberov was aware that some of the students were drinking underage and was criminally charged with an underage alcohol offense (misdemeanor). The vice president at the time and I both interviewed Matt Farberov about the incident who said he was fighting the charge. However, Farberov was found guilty
An alarming incident also occurred in the state of California when elementary principal, Craig Richter, was disciplined because he appeared in a short promotional video for a teacher’s prayer breakfast organized to honor educators (Samuel). The article states that the video was viewed by a school
In the article, “Greg Ousley Is Sorry for Killing Parents. Is That Enough?,” by Scott Anderson proves that some young individuals may act violently for certain matters because of how their parents treat them. It is unclear as to why juveniles and adolescents automatically go into extreme measures, however, this may be caused by lack of support from their parents. Anderson asserts, “What Phillips couldn’t see was that Greg’s behavior masked a rapidly deteriorating home life, where he was now the sole focus of his mother’s rage. Almost daily, Greg told me, his mother would rip into him about something- his grades, his appearance, his choice of friends- ferocious tirades that often culminated in her telling him, “I know you’re going to leave me just like your sisters did.”
Julian wants to sue David, the other player. In his complaint, which tort theory is Julian’s attorney most likely to allege and what will he have to prove for Julian to be successful? Julian’s attorney is most likely to allege Intentional Tort for his complaint to be successful. An intentional tort occurs whenever someone intends an action that results in harm to a person’s body, reputation, emotional well-being, or property. During the game David kicked Julian in the head while Julian was in possession on the ball.
That’s maybe why he felt all alone and killed himself. Then, I started screaming at the guidance counselor that Michael could have talked to me. And I started crying even harder. He tried to calm me down by saying that he meant an adult like a teacher or a guidance counselor. But it didn't work" (The perks of being a wallflower, 1999.
Theoretically, Sue can sue Peter under the tort of negligence if she can prove that Peter owed them a duty to care, breach of duty and damage (or loss) resulting from the breach. Additionally, Sue must be suffering losses or damage as a direct consequence of the negligence from Peter. The duty of care refers to the circumstances which are recognised as a legalised obligation to care for the duty one is performing, and failure to adhere to the standards may result in the responsible personnel being liable to pay for the damages due to his/her breach of the duty of care. First existence of the law with regards to “Duty of Care” originated from Lord Atkin’s neighbour principle from Donoghue v Stevenson (1932)
This case is fundamentally about rights against self-incrimination. There are a few facts that have been shared with the court assembled today that guided the decision made, firstly, “English teacher Carol Bergin...observed that her student 11th grader Emily Rosecrans was slow to answer questions in class and staring off into space. When questions, the student was slow to respond but said she felt ill” (p.1, paragraph one). Another fact of note was, “Miller brought five of the students from the list separately into his office and told them that he had information about their drug use and that they would be suspended if they did not confess where their drugs came from” (p.1, paragraph two). But why do these facts matter?