Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 1

Learning Task 1: The Law Assignment

EDUC 525 L01 (Summer 2017)- Ethics and Law in Education

Heather Million, Emma Hoblak and Sherin Mohammed

July 17, 2017

THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 2

Based upon the facts and the evidence provided in the “Student Drivers” case, we

find multiple parties liable for the injuries to Prim Irwin. The negligent actions of

Trudeau High School and Lindsay Waterman contributed to the injuries sustained by

Irwin in the accident. As such, the Okatoks School District is vicariously liable for the

negligence of the school and teacher. In addition, we find that Amanda Ballard is also

responsible for Irwin’s injuries, as a result of her negligence with regards to the safety

and condition of her vehicle. Last, we find that Irwin is partly liable for her injuries due to

contributory negligence. Our analysis of this case and reasoning for our decision will be

outlined in this paper.

It is clear that Trudeau High School and Waterman had a duty of care for both

students in the vehicle as stated in section 18 of the School Act (2000, R.SA., p. 28). The

two individuals in the vehicle were registered students of the high school, and the

accident occurred while they were driving from a school-sponsored event during school

hours. Further, the school and teacher are supposed to act in loco parentis. Hence, it is

our view that these two parties did not meet the standard of care that a “reasonable and

prudent parent” would in the same situation. The standard of care was not met, because

Waterman did not follow the School District Policy, which states:

No secondary school student, irrespective of age, may drive a private

vehicle transporting 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.
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 3

In actuality, the school activity was outside of the town limits. A prudent parent would

have conducted sound research of the location to ensure that the policies of the school

board would be abided by. In addition, the principal should have had an awareness that

the golf course was out of town, as the teacher would have had to get approval about the

activity beforehand.

Okatoks School District and Trudeau High School had a transportation guideline

for students that allowed them to drive themselves and others to school sponsored events.

Therefore, it should also be the responsibility of the employees of the school district (e.g.

teachers) to ensure that these vehicles are in safe and operational driving condition. A

reasonable and prudent parent would confirm that the vehicle that their child was driving

is safe. In this case, Waterman did not check Ballard’s car before the trip, and stated that

the condition of the vehicle was the responsibility of each student who drove. Leaving

this responsibility with a teenager is risky, as it is likely that a student may forget, not do

it, or lie about the condition of one’s vehicle. The school should have provided teachers

with a safety checklist that they could use to inspect vehicles that students would be

using. This is a logical decision the school should have administered when they chose to

implement the student driver policy.

During school hours, employees are responsible for supervising the students. It is

practical to believe that a reasonable and prudent parent would have kept the students

under their supervision until it was the appropriate time to dismiss them. The fact that the

students were dismissed early and the accident occurred during school hours, there was a

severe failure by Waterman and the principal to properly supervise the students (ref:
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 4

Myers vs. Peel, 1981, 2 R.C.S.). Thus, it is clear that this action did not meet an in loco

parentis standard of care.

It is reasonable to assume that any time an individual gets into a mode of

transportation, there is foreseeable risk involved. Furthermore, if a mode of transportation

does not meet safety standards, it is reasonable to assume that the risk increases. We

would argue that the transportation policy as outlined in the case, invites a certain amount

of reasonable foreseeability of risk. Trudeau High School’s transportation policy states,

“students are expected to drive in an appropriate and safe manner, including wearing

seatbelts.” Any reasonable person would be aware that high school aged students do not

have a lot of driving experience. Moreover, a reasonable person would know that at that

age, an individual may be easily influenced by their peers. Therefore, it is plausible to

conclude that the transportation policy as outlined by the school is inappropriate.

We argue that the school’s transportation policy does not meet the School

Act section 45.1(1) (2000, R.S.A., p. 46). In allowing students to drive themselves to

activities as stated in the transportation policy, it does not align with the School Act

section 45.1(1) (2000, R.S.A., p. 46) because students are to be provided with a safe and

caring environment. The transportation policy of the school district invites risk and

endangers students. For this reason, it is reasonable to assume foreseeability of accident

or injury occurring. Trudeau High School is the only school in the district that allows its

students to drive other students to school activities. The fact that the other schools in the

district do not follow the same policy, suggests that Trudeau’s transportation policy

maintains foreseeable risk of injury and/or accident.

THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 5

While there are various facets to this case, there are two essential proximate

causes. It is important to note that even though the vehicle model that Ballard was driving

was more susceptible to rollovers (Consumer Report, 2014), it was not the cause of

Irwin’s injuries. Rather, but for, Waterman allowing Ballard to drive Irwin to and from

the golf course, which was out of city limits, and not ensuring the vehicle was safe

beforehand; Irwin would not have been injured. It is evident that the incident could have

been prevented if the vehicle's safety conditions were ensured, and if Ballard had not

been given permission to drive herself and other students from the class activity in the

first place. Evidently, the proximate cause of Irwin’s injuries is the inaction of Waterman

with regards to checking Ballard’s vehicle’s seat belt. Further, Irwin’s quadriplegia and

subsequent financial and emotional damages are a direct result of Waterman’s actions

and the school board’s policies. Based upon our analysis of the facts, we believe the five

elements of negligence have been met, and Okatoks School District, Trudeau High

School, and Lindsay Waterman are partially liable for Irwin’s injuries.

It is our view, that Ballard is also partially liable for the injuries sustained by

Irwin. As the driver and registered owner of a vehicle, Ballard has a duty of care for any

passengers in her vehicle. Thus, she was responsible for the safety and care of Irwin

while she was a passenger (ref: Galaske vs. O’Donnell, 1994, S.C.J. No. 28). Ballard did

not meet the standard of care as a reasonable person, as she did not inform Irwin that she

could not sit in that seat because of the broken seat belt. Furthermore, she did not advise

her of another option (e.g. riding in the back, driving with another student, or using the

transportation provided by the teacher). A reasonable driver would ensure that a

passenger of their vehicle was in a safe environment before driving. Although Ballard
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 6

had an appointment to fix the seat belt, at the time of the accident it was defective.

Therefore, she should have not allowed another individual to sit in the passenger seat. In

addition, Ballard was charged and pled guilty of reckless driving under section 115(2)(b)

of the Traffic Safety Act (2000), as she tried to pass a stationary vehicle in an unsafe and

careless manner. A driver needs to make responsible decisions regarding their driving, in

order to keep themselves and others safe.

The function of a seat belt is to help protect an individual if they are involved in

an accident. It is reasonable to assume then, that since the seat belt was inoperative, there

was foreseeability that severe injuries could occur to a passenger in Ballard’s vehicle

during an accident. The fact that she had an appointment to fix it is evidence that Ballard

knew having a broken seat belt was a risk. We believe that proximate cause exists in this

case that finds Ballard liable. But for, Ballard allowing another individual to ride in her

vehicle knowingly without a working seat belt, Irwin would not have sustained the tragic

injuries that she did. Furthermore, but for, Ballard trying to pass a stationary vehicle in a

careless manner, the rollover would have been avoided. Therefore, Irwin would not have

sustained the life-changing injuries in the first place. We find that Irwin’s quadriplegia,

financial, and emotional damages to be a result of Ballard’s actions. After analyzing the

facts of the case, we find that the five elements of negligence have been met. As a result,

we find that Ballard is partially liable for Irwin’s injuries.

Dissenting:

Based upon the facts of this case, we find that Irwin should also be held partially

liable for her injuries due to contributory negligence, and creating an unreasonable risk to

herself. While evidence established that Irwin regularly used her seatbelt, the accident
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 7

reconstruction expert did not find that the seatbelt was used at all at the time of the

accident. This evidence shows that Irwin willfully put herself in a position of foreseeable

risk, regardless of whether Ballard informed her of the seatbelt or not. If in fact Irwin did

know the seatbelt was inoperative, she had the capacity to make a different decision as to

her transportation to and from the golf course. But for, Irwin choosing to ride in a vehicle

without a seatbelt, she would not have sustained the injuries she did.
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 8

References

Car Rollover 101. (2014, April). Retrieved from,

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/rollover-101/index.htm

Galaske v. O'Donnell, [1994] 1 S.C.R. 670. Retrieved from https://scc-

csc.lexum.com/scc-csc/scc-csc/en/item/1122/index.do
Myers v. Peel (County) Board of Education 1981CarswellOnt 579 [1981] 2 S.C.R. 21
Retrieved from
http://www.canlii.org/en/ca/scc/doc/1981/1981canlii27/1981canlii27.html

The School Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000, Chapter S-3, Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s03.pdf

Traffic Safety Act, Revised Statutes Alberta 2000, c T-6, Retrieved from
http://canlii.ca/t/52w