ipl-logo

Case Study Of The Eisel Vs. Board Of Education Of Montgomery County

1845 Words8 Pages

The Eisel verses Board of Education of Montgomery County Case is a case about negligence within the school community involving the school counselors and administration. This case is about Nicole Eisel a student at Sligo Middle School in Montgomery County who was a thirteen-year-old girl that associated herself within a murder-suicide pact. Friends of Nicole informed the school counselors, but the counselors had failed to inform her parents of the allegations. The misfortune about this case is that Nicole had become a Satanist and had joined a murder-suicide pact with another female student named Marsha Urevich. Nicole then informed her friends about the pact and disclosed to them that she was thinking about suicide heavily so that they could …show more content…

Nicole’s father, Stephen Eisel sued the school system, the superintendent, the principal and two guidance counselors at Sligo Middle School in Montgomery County. In June 1990, Judge J. James McKenna dismissed the suit ruling that the counselors and school board had no duty to intervene (McCord, 1991). The court found there was no law that stated that the counselors inform the parents. The purpose of this case was to find that the school counselors had a duty to intervene and stop a suicide from taking place that the breach of confidentiality was minimum compare to a life and death situation. The case was taken to the Court of Appeals of Maryland in 1990. The plaintiff argued that Nicole’s murder-suicide was foreseeable because the defendants had direct evidence of her suicide (Arthur Best, 2007, p. 237). The defendants argued, “In a failure to prevent suicide case, Maryland tort law should not treat an adolescent's committing suicide as a superseding cause when the entire premise of the Act is that others, including the schools, have the potential to intervene effectively” (Arthur Best, 2007). That the trouble student was not acting alone and that they are not independently standing. Also according to Best and Barnes (2007), the defendants also argued confidentiality, to maintain trust with their …show more content…

Christina School District from 2012, Rogers Ellerbe informed a friend he wanted to commit suicide; the friend informed a teacher who informed an Intervention Specialist at the school. The Specialist had a four-hour counseling session with Rogers and Rogers left the office feeling better about himself. The Specialist emailed the details of the session to the Assistant Principal, counselors and his teachers. Later that day Rogers hung himself. The School never notified his parents that he was suicidal and had previously attempted suicide. The judge granted the dismissal of this case on grounds that the school was not negligible and that there was no wrongful act under the Delaware Wrongful Death

More about Case Study Of The Eisel Vs. Board Of Education Of Montgomery County

Open Document