Вы находитесь на странице: 1из 7

Educ 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

Learning Task 1: The Law Assignment


Negligence Question – The Student Driver Case

Raina Cockburn, Diane Dang Vu, Danielle Drefko, Evan Manconi, Paige Thomas &
Christian Tiberi

University of Calgary
October 18, 2018
Educ 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

Based on the facts presented in the case, we find defendants Lindsay Waterman, Amanda

Ballard, and the plaintiff Prim Irwin negligent in the events that resulted in Irwin’s catastrophic

injuries on Tuesday, June 9, 2001. School principal?

Waterman

In our view, teacher Lindsay Waterman meets the five criteria of negligence. Based on

section 18 of the School Act and the principle of “in loco parentis” (Donlevy, 2018, slide 17),

Waterman owed a duty of care to her students. Despite the early dismissal, Ballard and Irwin

were returning to the school during school hours and Waterman was the acting adult in charge

during the time of the accident. Waterman failed to meet the standard of care required, as a

reasonable and prudent parent would have ensured that the Marabelle Resort Golf Course was

inside town limits, Good therefore, not breaching policy. As per the case, the policy students of

Trudeau High School must adhere to, specifically in regards to the The Transportation Guidelines

for Students, directly states that

[n]o secondary school student, irrespective of age, may drive a private vehicle transport

ing other students to school-sponsored activities during school hours or as school

representatives, except to use local facilities within the town or village boundaries for

activities that are an integral part of instruction.

Recognizing that car accidents are reasonably foreseeable events when driving in the city and on

highways (Yuan et al. vs Farstad et al., 1967), this policy is in place to mitigate the inherent risks

of students driving. Thus it can be argued that Waterman allowing students to drive to the golf

course, via the highway, increased the potential severity of an accident. As well, Waterman

would have needed to transport herself to the golf course, knowing that highway travel was

required and above the town’s listed speed limits. But for Waterman not following the school
Educ 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

transportation policy, which prohibits students from driving to school activities outside the

town’s speed limit of 40km/hr, the severity of the accident would not have been as catastrophic.

But for, Waterman not following the district policy, which prohibits students from driving their

own vehicles, this incident would not have taken place.

The damages suffered by Irwin are severe and permanent, who is now a quadriplegic as a

result of the incident. There are many considerations to be taken when determining the cost of

inflicted damages. First, Irwin is a high-school student. Therefore, her quality of life for the rest

of her life is impacted by this event. Next, Irwin’s future endeavours must be considered because

of her youth. That is, the incident may limit possible career choices. Finally, Quantum Meruit

may apply in this case, if Irwin’s parents have to take a leave from work to care for Irwin.

Waterman would be protected by the Trudeau High School and Okotoks School District

and would not be held directly liable as per section 144.1 (1) of the School Act, Good which

states, “employees of a board... are not liable for any loss or damage caused by anything said or

done or omitted to be done in good faith in the performance or intended performance of their

functions, duties or powers” (Alberta School Act, 2000, s. 144). Liability instead falls on the

Okotoks School District, as established in Bain v. Calgary Board of Education: “acting within the

scope of [their] authority as one of the Board's teachers and that if the teacher is liable, the Board

is also liable” (Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, 1993). As Waterman was acting under the

board’s approval, the liability for this accident falls onto the District.

Ballard

Ballard had a duty of care for the passenger as a licensed driver. Further, Ballard had a

standard of care to abide by the Traffic Safety Act and operate the vehicle in a safe manner.
Educ 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

Additionally, the standard of care increased due to the associated risks of operating a motor

vehicle on the highway. While recognizing that Ballard would not legally be responsible for the

wearing of a seatbelt by Irwin, if Irwin is 16 years of age or older, a reasonable driver would be

prudent to ensure the safety of her vehicle’s occupant. Although Ballard was driving under the

speed limit, she failed to exhibit the standard of care of a reasonable licensed driver operating a

motor vehicle on a highway on multiple occasions: first, the facts of the case do not suggest that

the maneuver to avoid the truck was necessary. Ballard was charged for Careless Driving, under

the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta (2000). Section 115(2)(B) states that, “A person shall not …

drive a vehicle on a highway in a manner that constitutes driving carelessly” (131). This charge

is presumably due to the fact that she passed the truck, where arguably, in the event that a

stationary vehicle is blocking one’s lane of the highway, a reasonable driver would stop behind

the stationary vehicle and assess the situation before attempting to pass the vehicle. Second,

Ballard failed to exhibit a standard of care by allowing Irwin to sit in the passenger’s seat with

the knowledge that the seatbelt on the passenger’s side failed to function.

The question is if a reasonable licensed driver could foresee if the factors for a possible

accident were in place prior to the event. It would be within the realm of possibility that a young

driver, recognizing that statistically collision rates are highest for drivers between the ages of 15

and 24 (Government of Alberta, 2015), would be at a greater risk of an accident. Although

Ballard was travelling at an estimated 78km/h at the time of the incident, this was 38km/h above

what would be safely permitted within the city limits and, by extension, how fast students were

permitted to travel in their own vehicles when traveling to off-site activities. Although rollovers

are rare, occurring in only three percent of accidents (Consumer Report), the factors that led up

to the damages are reasonably foreseeable and risk should have been mitigated by Ballard, which
Educ 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

would ensure she had a working seat belt for her passenger. Thus, it can be ruled that the factors

leading to the crash are reasonably foreseeable.

The element of causality in the incident that resulted in Irwin’s injuries can be traced

back to Ballard’s careless driving. That is, but for Ballard not performing an unsafe maneuver in

an attempt Very Good! to avoid the stationary truck, the car would not have rolled over, and

Irwin would not have sustained the damages and the cost related to those damages as discussed

above. Further, going back to Ballard’s standard of care, it could be determined that the

maneuver to avoid the stationary truck is not one that a reasonable driver would have performed.

Irwin

Prim Irwin, as a passenger in Ballard’s vehicle, failed to take proper precautions to ensure

her own safety and therefore breached the duty of care to herself. Despite Irwin’s claims to have

worn the available three-point seatbelt, Ballard spoke to the contrary and the accident

reconstruction expert found insufficient evidence that the malfunctioning seat belt was used.

Alberta Traffic Safety Act: Vehicle Equipment Regulation (2009) s. 82 (b) states that a “person in

the passenger seat shall wear the complete seat belt assembly.” The Transportation Guidelines for

Students -PHYS ED 20/30 Driving Policy had been communicated and reinforced to all students

including Irwin. The Guideline states that students must wear a seatbelt and that the Physical

Education Instructor will provide transportation for any students who are not able to get to the

facility. A reasonable and prudent person understands that the purpose of a seat belt is to

minimize the injuries sustained in a motor vehicle accident. Additionally, with the knowledge of

a legal requirement to wear a seatbelt and the school’s guideline, a standard of care has been

established. In addition, as per her own testimony, Irwin was aware that the passenger seatbelt
Educ 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

was malfunctioning. A reasonable and prudent person would have chosen another seat with a

working seatbelt or made alternative travel arrangements to ensure her own safety. A car accident

is a reasonably foreseeable event when driving a vehicle in a city or on a highway. Although it

was established that Irwin opened the sunroof Good of the vehicle and an open sunroof

increases the risk of ejection, a rollover is not a reasonably foreseeable event as stated above.

Therefore, this evidence was not considered a factor in Irwin’s contributory negligence. In terms

of causality, but for Irwin’s decision to sit in the passenger seat of Ballard’s car without the use

of a properly functioning seatbelt, she would not have suffered her the damages discussed above.

Since Irwin meets the points of negligence (Donlevy, 2018, slide 17) and consistent with

the seat belt defence argued in Yuan et al. v. Farstad et al., we find her guilty of contributory

negligence.

Conclusion

As argued above, Waterman and Ballard meet the criteria of negligence and are liable for

the damages sustained by Irwin. We assign responsibility of 50% to Lindsay Waterman (Okotoks

School District) and 40% to Amanda Ballard. In addition, we find Irwin to be 10% responsible

due to her established contributory negligence.

References

Alberta School Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. S-3, s 144(1.1)


Educ 525 L01 - Ethics and Law in Education

Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, 1993 CanLII 7301 (AB QB), http://canlii.ca/t/2brbx
retrieved on 2018-10-14

Consumer Reports. (February, 2013). Car Rollover 101: How rollovers happen and what you
can do to avoid one. Retrieved from
http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/rollover-101/index.htm

Donlevy, J.K. (2018). September 27, 2018 class # 6. [Powerpoint slides]. Retrieved from https://
d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/234353/viewContent/3170217/View

Contributory Negligence Act. Revised Statutes of Alberta (2000) Chapter C-27 s.

Traffic safety act: Vehicle Equipment Regulation. Alberta Regulation(2009) s. 82 (2)b.

Traffic safety act: Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter T-6. Retrieved from http://
www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf

Yuan et al. V. Farstad et al. (1967). B.C.S.C.

Вам также может понравиться