Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
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
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
[n]o secondary school student, irrespective of age, may drive a private vehicle transport
representatives, except to use local facilities within the town or village boundaries for
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
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
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
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
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
References
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
Traffic safety act: Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter T-6. Retrieved from http://
www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf