Running head: LEARNING TASK 1: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT

Learning Task 1: The Law Assignment

Stephanie Quinlan, Cooper Reed, Katherine Roach, Cameron Taylor, & Christine Warner

University of Calgary
LEARNING TASK ONE: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT
2
Learning Task One: The Law Assignment- Negligence Case

Introduction

After an approved out of town field trip held by Lindsay Waterman (Waterman) on June

9, 2001, Amanda Ballard (Ballard) was driving Prim Irwin (Irwin) and herself back to the school

from the Marabelle Resort Golf Course. Ballard and Irwin are both students at Trudeau High

School in the Okatoks School District. During this drive, while passing a truck at a highway

junction, Ballard flipped her vehicle resulting in Irwin’s lifelong injury as a quadriplegic. Irwin’s

parents are suing for injuries that she received during the accident.

In the following sections we will be applying the five Tort Law rules: duty of care owed,

standard of care, breach, damage, and causation (Wong, 2019b) to prove negligence, on a

balance of probabilities of 51%. The ‘but for test’ being: “but for the [persons] actions or

inaction, would the students have been injured?” (Wong, 2019b) will be used to determine who

is legally liable for Irwin’s injuries as well as proving causation.

Okatoks School Board v Irwin

The Okatoks school board owed a duty of care to the students because the field trip was a

school sanctioned event, during school hours. The school board also had a standard of care that

was not upheld. They needed to eliminate all reasonable and foreseeable risk when approving a

field trip. Both of the other Okatoks school boards have policies in place that do not allow

students to drive for field trips, proving that this school board took a greater risk, as it was

foreseeable that students could get into a car accident while driving. When approving an out of

town field trip, the principal should have hired a school bus and driver to ensure the safety of all

students and prevent them driving beyond the 40km speed limit of the town. The Okatoks School

Board broke standard of care when they neglected to hire a school bus for an out of town field
LEARNING TASK ONE: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT
3
trip. The outcome in Myers (Next friends of) v Peel County of Education gives precedence to this

case because the Peel County of Education school board failed to provide adequate matting for

gymnastics, and the Okatoks school board failed to provide adequate transportation for the field

trip.

By using the ‘but for test’ as seen in Wong (2019b), if the principal would have taken

action to order a school bus, it would have prevented Ballard from having to drive, which in turn

would prevent the car accident. Therefore, the damage Irwin incurred, was a direct result of the

Okatoks School Board’s failure to maintain the minimum standard of care.

Argument Against Negligence

The school board had a clear policy outlining that students were not allowed to drive

fellow students to field trips that occurred out of town limits. Gu (Litigation guardian of) v

Friesen, 2013 gives precedence to this argument because both schools had clear and direct safety

policies that were reinforced throughout the school year and were made known to both faculty

and students. In the case of Gu (Litigation guardian of) v Friesen, 2013, the school board was

not held liable. However, Waterman did not uphold this policy and the Okatoks School Board is

vicariously responsible for Waterman’s choices because she was acting within her teaching role.

Waterman v Irwin

Lindsay Waterman owed a duty of care towards her students because she was acting

within her teacher role during this field trip. According to Wong (2019a), the “educator’s

standard of care applies to activities and excursions off school property”.

Waterman breached standard of care when she violated the School District

Administrative Policy Transportation Guideline for Students stating that “no secondary school

student, irrespective of age, may drive a private vehicle transporting other students to school-
LEARNING TASK ONE: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT
4
sponsored activities during school hours” (Donlevy, n.d., pp. 1-2). Lindsay Waterman breached

standard of care when she negated to relieve all reasonable and foreseeable risk during this

incident. Bain (Guardian ad litem of) v Calgary Board of Education gives precedence in this

case when discussing standard of care because both Bain’s and Waterman’s care fell below the

minimum standard of care by not preventing reasonable and foreseeable events. We would not

consider this accident “freakish” because this accident could have been reasonable and

foreseeable if you took into account the skill level of the young driver. The student who was

driving (Ballard) can only be assumed as having experience driving on roads not exceeding 40

km/hr. In order to get to the golf course, the students needed to take the highway, the speed limit

was 100 km/hr. She allowed a new driver with limited experience to drive on roads that greatly

exceeded the speed limit that Ballard was used to.

The injuries Irwin incurred were directly caused by Waterman’s inaction. By applying

the “but for” test, if it were not for Waterman’s inaction, Irwin would not have been injured;

therefore, damage and causation is proved.

Argument Against Negligence

Waterman should not be held personally liable because she was acting within the scope

of her employment. One reason that Waterman should not be held liable is that it was foreseeable

that a car accident could occur when inexperienced drivers are driving on a highway. However, it

was not foreseeable that Ballard would allow Irwin to ride without a seatbelt. Therefore, were

Irwin’s injuries truly reasonable and foreseeable?

Ballard v Irwin

Ballard owed a duty of care to Irwin as her passenger to drive in a safe and responsible

manner lawfully under the Traffic Safety Act and also under her school policy. Ballard’s school
LEARNING TASK ONE: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT
5
policy stated that “when driving to and from Physical Education activities, students are expected

to drive in an appropriate and safe manner, including wearing seatbelts” (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2).

Ballard acknowledged this by signing the school waiver and voluntarily driving a private vehicle

and another student for the purposes of the physical education activity. She also had a duty of

care as the registered owner of her vehicle, to maintain its working order, to uphold safety while

driving on public roadways.

As the owner and operator of her vehicle, Ballard had a standard of care to prevent

reasonable and foreseeable harm. Ballard knew that her passenger seatbelt was faulty as she had

discussed this earlier in the year which was witnessed by fellow students (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2).

She also booked an appointment to have the seat belt repaired, which further proved her prior

knowledge of it being faulty and unsafe for passenger use. It was reasonable for Ballard to

foresee a passenger potentially suffering significant harm while relying on a faulty seatbelt in the

event of an accident. Ballard breached her standard of care owed to Irwin by allowing her to sit

in the passenger’s seat without informing her of the faulty seatbelt. If it were not for Ballard’s

action and inaction, Irwin’s injuries would not have occurred. Gu (Litigation guardian of) v

Friesen holds precedence in this case because the “boy who pushed her was liable and should

have known that pushing could lead to an accident”, and Ballard is liable because she should

have known that allowing Irwin to not wear a seatbelt could result in serious injuries if an

accident were to occur.

Irwin’s quantifiable damages were directly caused by Ballard’s action to drive her back

to the school and her inaction to inform Irwin of the faulty seatbelt. Therefore, according to tort

law, Ballard passes all five legal tests to prove that she is legally negligent.
LEARNING TASK ONE: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT
6
Argument Against Negligence

That being said, Ballard should have never needed to drive Irwin to and from this

assigned field trip.

Irwin’s Negligence to Self

Students have a standard of care toward themselves and Irwin breached her own standard

of care. According to Wong (2019b), the “standard of care for students is that of a reasonably

prudent student of the same age, intelligence, and experience” would make the same decision in

the same situation. A reasonably prudent student of the same age, intelligence, and experience in

this case would have chosen to put on their seatbelt; therefore, Irwin breached her own standard

of care by not upholding her minimum standard of care.

Argument Against Negligence

That being said, despite an accident reconstruction expert finding no evidence of Irwin

wearing a seatbelt, Ballard did not inform Irwin of the faulty seat belt nor did she offer a

different seat with a functioning seatbelt, such as the back seat; therefore, it seems unreasonable

to hold Irwin liable for her injuries. If Irwin had worn the seatbelt she would have had misplaced

trust in the seatbelt. If Irwin had been told of the faulty seatbelt, the changing circumstances

would have held her accountable for her decision to not wear it. However, Ballard failed to do

so, therefore, she did not allow Irwin to make an informed decision regarding her own safety. Gu

(Litigation guardian of) v Friesen holds precedence in this case because Irwin should have

known that choosing not to wear a seat belt were an accident to occur would result in worse
LEARNING TASK ONE: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT
7
injuries compared to if she had worn one. By using the but for test, if Irwin had taken action and

put on the seat belt, her injuries may still have happened. Therefore, we cannot prove causality.

Conclusion

Since Lindsay Waterman was acting under her scope of employment, the Okatoks school

board is vicariously liable for her negligence. For this reason, we decided that the Okatoks

School Board will be held 60% liable for Irwin’s injuries. Amanda Ballard will be held 40%

liable for Irwin’s injuries. Irwin is not liable for her own injuries due to the fact that she was

unaware of the broken seat belt, even if she did use the seat belt, it would not have worked

effectively and the same injuries may have occurred.

 LEARNING TASK ONE: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT
8
References

Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, 1993 CanLII 7301, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. (1993).

Retrieved from http://canlii.ca/t/2brbx

Donlevy, J.K. (n.d) Student drivers [Class handout]. Retrieved from University of Calgary D2L site:

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca

Gu v. Friesen, 2013 CCSC 607, The Supreme Court of British Columbia. (2013). Retrieved from

https://www.canlii.org/en/bc/bcsc/doc/2013/2013bcsc607/2013bcsc607.html?autocompleteStr=g

u%20v.%20frie&autocompletePos=1

Myers v. Peel County Board of Education, 1981 CanLII 27, Supreme Court of Canada. (1981).

Retrieved from http://canlii.ca/t/1mjlh

Wong, H. (2019a, October 1). Tort of negligence 2 [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from University of

Calgary D2L site: https://d2l.ucalgary.ca

Wong, H. (2019b, September 26). Tort of negligence [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from University

of Calgary D2L site: https://d2l.ucalgary.ca