Running head: Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 1

Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment

Keegan Lupul, Hina Sheikh, Peter Infanti, Luke Egener, George Haddad

University of Calgary
Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 2

Facts of the case

On Tuesday, June 9 , 2017 at about 3:05 pm, Lindsay Waterman dismissed her class early from
th

their activity at the Countryside Resort Golf course which was outside of the Okotoks city limit.

Sylvia Ballard (16 years old) and Prim Jasmin (17 years old) left the Countryside Resort Golf

Course driving a 2017 Mitsubishi Outlander SUV at about 78km/hour. On the way back to

school they approached an uncontrolled, four-way intersection along a country road where

Ballard attempted to maneuver around a truck to avoid the stop. Subsequently, the SUV rolled

seven times and threw Jasmin through the sunroof. Jasmin suffered severe injuries due to the

accident. Ballard was charged and pleaded guilty to, Driving Carelessly under section 115(2)(b)

of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta.

We will use the five elements of negligence to determine liability in this student drivers case.

Damages: The damages are determined in the same way for all parties where Jasmin, the

passenger, is a quadriplegic as a result of the accident. Her catastrophic injuries have impacted

her quality of life indefinitely therefore, damages are present.

Sylvia Ballard 16 year old student (Driver)

Duty of care: According to Vehicle Equipment Regulations Act Section “83(6) A person shall

not drive or operate a motor vehicle that was equipped with a seat belt assembly at the time it

was manufactured as required by the Motor Vehicle Safety Act (Canada) and the regulations

under that Act if the seat belt assembly has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative

or modified so as to reduce its effectiveness” (2009).

Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 3

Since Ballard was the driver of the vehicle, she had a responsibility to ensure that all seatbelts in

the vehicle were in working order before operating the vehicle. Ballard did not meet her duty of

care.

Standard of care: Ballard pled guilty to careless driving and breached the statute. Ballard

neglected her standard of care by failing to provide Jasmin with a functioning seatbelt.

Causality: If Ballard did not drive carelessly the accident might not have been as severe or

might have been avoided entirely. The injury to Jasmin could have been avoided with reasonable

driving. Ballard made the decision to drive knowing that the seatbelt did not function. Therefore,

causality was present.

Foreseeability: Ballard was aware that the seatbelt was not working and could see that if an

accident occurred it might result in an injury. Ballard was driving carelessly and could

reasonably foresee the possibility of an accident occurring.

Prim Jasmin (Passenger)

Duty of care: Section 82 (4) of the Vehicle Equipment Regulations Act requires the passenger to

wear “[…] the seat belt assembly properly adjusted and securely fastened” (2009). Jasmin

needed to ensure that the seat belt was operative and securely fastened. Since she failed to do so,

as was discovered by the accident reconstruction expert, she failed to meet the duty of care to

herself.

Standard of care: Jasmin herself claimed that she had been privy to a conversation earlier in the

year where she overheard Ballard say that the front passenger seat belt was malfunctioning.

Since Jasmin was aware that the seat belt was dysfunctional, it was her responsibility to refuse

the ride. A reasonable person would not ride in a vehicle with an inoperative seat belt. Jasmin

agreed to take a ride regardless, therefore, she did not meet the standard of care.
Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 4

Foreseeability: It is reasonably foreseeable that not wearing a seat belt can lead to severe

injuries or ultimately death in the case of an accident. Therefore, foreseeability was evident in

this case.

Causality: Jasmin knowingly riding in a vehicle with an inoperative seat belt is the cause for her

severe injuries since, if she had not accepted the ride, she could have avoided the accident and

her injuries.

Lindsay Waterman (Teacher)

Duty of Care: Under Section 18 of the School Act, teachers have a duty to “maintain, under the

direction of the principal, order and discipline among the students while they are in the school or

on the school grounds and while they are attending or participating in activities sponsored or

approved by the board” (2017). The principle of in loco parentis applies; so, too, does the idea

that teachers who possess “expert’’ knowledge must exhibit a higher standard of care than

ordinary parents in elements of the subject matter or program that are inherently dangerous

(Alberta Teachers Association, 2013). Waterman failed to meet the duty of care.

Standard of Care: It is Waterman’s responsibility to ensure the location of the golf course is

within city limits if she is to allow students to drive themselves as per the School District

transportation guidelines and PHYS ED 20/30 course driving policy. Once arriving at the golf

course Waterman must have realized the location is outside the city limits, yet still allowed

students to drive back and in doing so, failed to meet the standard of care.

Foreseeability: Anyone could reasonably foresee a possible accident occurring due to higher

speeds within rural boundaries. In fact, Waterman printed a waiver of responsibility consent

form because she was aware of the risk.

Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 5

Causality: If Waterman had done her due diligence to find out the location of the golf course,

then the students would have not been able to drive each other to the event which could have

prevented the accident.

Okotoks School District

Duty of Care: The school district had a duty of care based on section 45.1 of the School Act,

specifically “to ensure that each student... is provided with... a safe learning environment”

(School Act, 2017).

Standard of Care: The school district did not meet the standard of care. The School Board did

not act on due diligence to ensure policies of the off-campus activity were being followed.

Foreseeability: It is reasonable to suggest that the School Board should have foreseen the safety

risks that were associated with the off-campus activity, based on what similar schools in the

district have done. The other two high schools in the Okotoks District prohibit students from

driving other students to any school activity. Because of this, we believe the board should be

held liable for breaching their fiduciary duty, which is to “act in a disinterested manner that puts

the interests of the recipient ahead of all other interests” (Alberta School Boards Association,

2014).

Causality: The School Board’s negligence in failing to enforce their own policies, is the cause of

the plaintiff's harm. The School Board assumes all responsibility when they approve and sign off

on off-campus activities. The safety risks associated with rural driving, private vehicles, and

early class dismissal result from inadequate due diligence from the School Board on their

policies.
Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 6

Peter Lougheed School Principal

Duty of care: The school principal had a duty of care as per section 20 of the School Act (f), to

“maintain order and discipline in the school and on the school grounds and during activities

sponsored or approved by the board.” (School Act, 2017).

Standard of care: The school principal did not meet the standard of care by failing to check the

location of the activity prior to approving it. The school principal had a duty to follow the

district’s policies, specifically to ensure the off-site location was within city limits. The accident

may have been avoided if the policies were followed.

Causality: If the school policy was followed, then the principal would have known the location

of the golf course and gone through the proper inspection to ensure that Ballard’s vehicle was

safe. This might have avoided the accident.

Foreseeability: It is reasonable to suggest that the school principal should have foreseen the

safety risks that were associated with the off-campus activity, based on what similar schools in

the district have done. The other two high schools in the Okotoks District prohibit students from

driving other students to any school activity.

Analysis

It is apparent that negligence is present with all parties, however, we believe the majority of the

liability rests on Waterman. Waterman breached her duty of care, by not ensuring the school

event took place within city limits as per the school policy. Waterman’s negligence, lead to

students driving private vehicles at speeds that “[...] make a vehicle's tendencies to roll over

more severe” (Consumer Reports, 2014). The speed is the primary cause of Jasmin’s injuries.

Since if she had been within the city limit, where the speed is 40 km/h, the accident would likely
Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 7

have been less severe. We believe that but for Waterman’s negligent behaviour, the accident may

not have been as severe or possibly even occurred.

Waterman also released the students at 3:00 pm, which is prior to regular school dismissal time

(3:30 pm). Both parents and the school board expected that the students were still under

Waterman’s care and supervision when the accident occurred at 3:05 pm. By releasing the

students early, Waterman failed to meet the standard of care.

Although Waterman failed her due diligence with respect to school policies, the liability of the

accident will not rest solely on her shoulders. The school principal also had a duty of care to

ensure that the school activities that are approved are aligned with the school policies. We

believe that Waterman’s liability is mitigated with the signature and approval of the principal to

carry out this off-campus activity.

Ballard and Jasmin were also negligent in their behaviour since Ballard had been driving

carelessly, and there was no evidence found that Jasmin was using a seatbelt.

Therefore, we believe that 80% of the liability falls upon Waterman, the school principal, and the

school board. The remaining 20% of liability will be split evenly between Ballard and Jasmin.
Learning Task #1: The Law Assignment 8

References

Alberta Education. (2012). Education Act. Retrieved from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/e00p3.pdf

Alberta Teacher’s Association. (2013). Teachers’ Rights, Responsibilities and Legal Liabilities.

Edmonton. Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-

Professionals/MON-2%20Teachers%20Rights.pdf

Alberta Education. (2017). School Act. Edmonton. Retrieved from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/s03.pdf

Alberta School Boards Association. (2014). How not to get sued as a trustee. Retrieved from

http://www.asba.ab.ca/wp-content/uploads/2014/07/fgm14how_not_sued_trustee.pdf

Consumer Reports. (2014). Car Rollover 101 - Consumer Reports. Consumerreports.org.

Retrieved from https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/rollover-101/index.htm

Traffic Safety Act. (2009). Vehicle Equipment Regulation. Alberta Government. Retrieved from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2009_122.pdf

Transport Canada. (1993). Motor Vehicle Safety Act - Transport Canada. Retrieved from

https://www.tc.gc.ca/eng/acts-regulations/acts-1993c16.htm