Professional Documents
Culture Documents
LT1: Negligence
Katelyn DeJong, Simon Kim, Jordan Mensink, Jillian Vaz, Sung Ung Yu
University of Calgary
Lindsay Waterman
Duty of Care
The teacher is in charge of the students in loco parentis (GDE Family Law, 2018), acting
as the students’ guardians during school hours, in both on and off campus activities.
Standard of Care
The standard of care provided to students must be looked at through the lens of in loco
parentis (Donlevy, 2018). The transcript states that the “Transportation guidelines for Students”
of the “Trudeau High School Directive” is “discussed on the first day and reinforced throughout
the year”. As such, the teacher should be more than familiar with the guidelines outlined.
Waterman admitted to believing that the Marabelle Resort Golf Course was within the town
limits. If Waterman had been more thorough in preparing the off-campus activity, she would
have discovered that the location was outside town limits and thus violated the guidelines of
driving to facilities outside the town boundaries. Therefore, the activity itself should have been
cancelled due to its location violating the guidelines and the accident should not have taken
place.
Foreseeability
Ms. Waterman, if allowing students to use own transportation for an event within town
limits, should have ensured the car was safe in multiple measure, especially the seatbelt - which
Causality
But for the teacher’s inability to identify the contradictions of the activity specifications
(location), the activity would have been cancelled or transportation should have been provided in
Liability
The teacher was negligent in ascertaining the contradictions between the parameters of
Damages
Principal/School Board
Duty of Care
Through the principle of in loco parentis, meaning “in the place of the parent” (GDE
Family Law, 2018) the principal of Trudeau High School is liable for any injuries of students on
Standard of Care
The Standard of Care is objective, not subjective, and established through evidence at
trial (Donlevy, 2018). Through examination of the trial’s evidence, a lack of awareness on the
principal’s behalf was discovered. It is the principal’s duty to reduce risk of injury to students.
We are making the assumption that the principal would have knowledge, furthermore approved
of, said field trip and would have been aware that the field trip would have disregarded the
transportation policy, outlined on the permission slip. Further, there is also the exemption of
LT1: NEGLIGENCE 4
Trudeau High School from the Okotoks School Board Policy which, ‘prohibit students from
driving other students to any school activity’. As stated in the Alberta School Act section [20(f)]
a principal of a school must maintain order and discipline in the school and on the school
grounds and during activities sponsored or approved by the board (Alberta School Act, 2018).
By allowing students to drive one another to and from school sanctioned activities, he/she is
increasing the chance of liability to occur. Since the principal integrated a different policy
counter to the school district, the principal should have been explicit with the policy to ensure
anything of this nature would not occur. Furthermore, the principal is responsible for all actions
by teachers under his/her employment; thus, all breaches of safety and accountability standards
Foreseeability
The principal should have disapproved of the location, or if he/she approved the location,
then proper transportation should have been provided. Foreseeability of any kind of
transportation accident could have been prevented, if Trudeau High School’s transportation was
Causality
But for the principal’s inability to forego the field trip, or reformat the parameters of the
field trip, Irwin may have not sustained the injuries she did.
Liability
The principal was negligent in having a different policy, and the school board is liable
Damages
damages could amount to the following: pain & suffering, past, present, future loss of income,
costs of assisted living and loss of consortium (Donlevy, 2018). The principal and Okotoks
Prim Irwin
Duty of Care
Irwin owed a duty of care to herself. Not only did she break the School District
Administrative Transportation Guideline for Students, she also entered the vehicle willingly,
despite having previous knowledge that there was a problem with the passenger side seat belt. It
was Irwin’s responsibility to ask for specifics in order to gauge whether she should sit in the
passenger seat. Furthermore, despite Irwin’s assertion that she wore the passenger seatbelt, the
reconstruction evidence does not show that the seatbelt was used.
Standard of Care
Reasonable and prudent individuals would ensure that they wear a seatbelt. This is in
accordance with the School District Administrative Transportation Guideline for Students and
was discussed on the first day of the Physical Education class. By failing to wear a seatbelt and
breaking the school’s transportation guidelines, Irwin did not meet the standard of care.
Foreseeability
It is foreseeable that, in the event of an accident, injury could occur regardless if Irwin
was wearing a seatbelt or not. However, Irwin increased the risk of exacerbating her injuries by
Causality
But for Irwin’s inaction of not wearing a seatbelt, as well as her action of opening the
sunroof, the extent of her injuries would not have been as significant. Her injuries were worsened
Liability
Irwin should not have been in the vehicle without an operative seatbelt; consequently,
Damages
Irwin became a quadriplegic as a result of the vehicle rollover and being thrown from the
sunroof.
Amanda Ballard
Duty of Care
Amanda Ballard duty of care, in accordance with the School District Administrative
Transportation Guideline for Students, was to drive only herself to Marabelle Golf Course,
outside of town limits. However, Ballard breached the guidelines as she allowed Irwin to be the
As well, Ballard had the duty of care as the driver for Prim Irwin, as she assumed the
Standard of Care
Ballard was to drive only herself to Marabelle Golf Course. Ballard breached the guidelines as
LT1: NEGLIGENCE 7
she allowed Irwin to be the passenger of her vehicle, which was not permitted as the golf course
It falls under reasonable standard of care for Ballard to have had functioning seat belts for
the passengers in the vehicle. Under 83(1) of the Traffic Safety Act: Vehicle Equipment
Regulation by the Province of Alberta (2009) Ballard was required to have every passenger be
provided with a safe functioing seatbelt. In allowing Irwin to ride as a passenger, knowing the
vehicle’s passenger seat belt was malfunctioning, Ballard did not act in a reasonable manner
under the circumstances. Ballard was charged with Driving Carelessly under 115(1)(b) of the
Traffic Act of Alberta (D2L, 2018) as Ballard allowed Irwin to use the passenger seat with the
Foreseeability
When considering the facts presented, any reasonable individual would not allow a
passenger to occupy a seat with a malfunctioning seat belt. In allowing passengers to occupy a
seat with a malfunctioning seat belt, a reasonable individual would foresee the passenger, in
event of an accident, would suffer greater harm than if an individual were to be a passenger in a
Ballard should have avoided having a passenger in her vehicle in accordance with the
School District Administrative Transportation Guideline for Students (D2L, 2018) as it states
that no students may drive and transport other students except for school sponsored activities and
to local facilities within the town. Ballard failed to meet the guidelines as she was not permitted
to transport other students in her vehicle to or from the golf course because it was outside of
town limits. Thus, the type and severity of injuries suffered by Irwin were foreseeable in light of
Causality
If not for breaking the School District Administrative Transportation Guideline for
Students (D2L, 2018) in taking in another passenger to the golf course and allowing Irwin to be
the passenger in the vehicle, while knowing the passenger seat belt was not functioning properly,
Irwin would not have been ejected from the vehicle and severely injured.
Liability
Amanda Ballard was negligent as Ballard did not follow the School District
Administrative Transportation Guideline for Students (D2L, 2018) as she allowed Irwin to be the
passenger to a school activity outside the town boundaries. Ballard was also negligent as she
allowed Irwin to ride on the passenger side in knowing that the seat belt was not functioning
Damages
Irwin is a quadriplegic because of the accident involving the rollover the vehicle and
having been ejected from the sunroof (D2L, 2018). Amanda Ballard share liability with the
Final Defence
Lindsay Waterman was negligent through not specifying the location of field trip was outside of
the parameters that had been noted in the guidelines in the school directive, and not arranging
other forms of transportation or cancelling the trip. The Principal was negligent by having a
different policy than the school board, as well as the school board by association. Irwin and
Ballard were both contributorily negligent by not following the School District Administrative
Transportation Guideline for Students (D2L, 2018). Ballard and parents were also negligent by
LT1: NEGLIGENCE 9
allowing Irwin to be a front seat passenger while knowing that the seat belt had a defect and was
References
Donlevy, J.K. (2018, September 27). Vicarious Liability of School Boards [PowerPoint
parentis/
Province of Alberta. (2009). Traffic Safety Act: Vehicle Equipment Regulation. Retrieved
from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2009_122.pdf