Education 525- LT 2

Negligence Question: Student Drivers

Morgan Lamontagna – 10138243

Blair Rossum - 30004785

Brittany Standing- 10104087

Emma Thorne

The University of Calgary

Fall 2019
 The case of “student drivers” is a negligence case. Negligence is defined as “not doing
something a prudent and reasonable person would do or doing something that a prudent and
reasonable person would not do” (Alberta Teachers Association, n.d.). Negligence is a form of
tort law, which is a wrongdoing that is compensable in damages, which can be intentional or
unintentional (Wong, September 2019). This case, is an unintentional tort because Ballard and
Waterman did not intend or foresee Irwin getting hurt. Under tort law there are many rulings
for negligence including; an individual can be found solely negligent; if more than one
individual is found to be negligent they are contributory negligent; and if an employee of a
company is found to be negligent the company can be vicariously liable (Wong, September
2019). In defence to a negligence claim an individual may use the volenti defence. In the case
of the damages caused to Irwin, multiple individuals were found liable as negligent, which will
be discussed below. The individuals negligence will be discussed in regards to the “Negligence
legal test” which is as follows, “1. Duty of Care (Statute & Common Law), 2. Standard of Care
(Objective), 3.Foreseeability (Reasonable), 4. Causality (“But For”), and 5. Damages (Money,
Pain & Suffering, Future wage loss, Exemplary)”(Wong, September 2019).

Waterman
Argument for negligence

Waterman, the supervising teacher of the field trip, is expected a duty of care, to care
for and protect, the students attending this field trip, even as it is away from school property.
Waterman is in a position of Loco Parentis, which states that she has an obligation of duty as
guardian along with the responsibility for the protection of the students ( Wong, September
2019).
In Myers v Peel County Board of Education (1981), Waterman has to act within the
standard of a careful and prudent parent which applies to activities and excursions off school
property (Wong, October 2019). Waterman is responsible for all of the students and for
organizing the transportation to and from the golf course. Waterman stated that she assumed
the golf course was within the town’s limits, but later it was revealed that it was outside of
town limits. She did not act as a “careful and prudent parent” as she made many careless
decisions contributing to the incident including not adhering to the school’s transportation
policy in which students were not allowed to drive another student if the activity took place
outside of the town limits.
Although Waterman did not intend the accident to occur she allowed Ballard to
transport Irwin. Waterman’s planning of a field trip outside of the town limits allowed the
students to be on the highway, where the scene of their accident. Additionally, but for,
Waterman allowing Ballard to drive Irwin, Irwin would have not been in the vehicle and thus
not in the accident incurring the injuries. Waterman was negligent in fulfilling a duty of care
to prevent foreseeable risk of harm as an appointed guardian who was responsible for the
wellbeing of her students (Wong, September 2019).
The physical and emotional damages that occurred to both Irwin and Ballard are an
outcome of Waterman’s decisions and thus she could be considered contributorily negligent in
regards to the accident.
Argument against negligence
It can be argued that Waterman is not responsible for Irwin’s injuries as she could not
foresee the following; that Ballard’s passenger side seat belt was broken, that there was a
stationary truck on the highway, and Ballard’s reckless driving. Additionally, Waterman would
have assumed she was acting within her legal expectations in allowing students to transport
themselves to and from the activity as the field trip was approved by the school confirming her
assumption that the location was in town limits . Waterman acting as ‘careful and prudent
parent’ would realize that the students are assuming risk as soon as they enter a vehicle. By
allowing the students to assume the expected risk of entering the vehicle Waterman was within
her expectation as a responsible guardian under volenti defence.

Ballard
Argument for negligence
Ballard is considered negligent as she holds a Student Standard of Care that states she
must act reasonably for her age, this entails that she would act as a reasonably prudent student
of the same age, intelligence and experience. This also includes that the students are able to
appreciate the consequences of their actions (Wong, September 2019). As a driver’s licence
holder, Ballard is expected to drive and use her vehicle legally and responsibly. Ballard knew
that the seatbelt was inoperable and still offered to transport her classmate. Ballard also decided
to drive carelessly knowing that she had somebody else in her car who was using a faulty seat
belt or was not using a seatbelt at all. The accident was foreseeable using the Volenti defense
(Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, 1993) assuming that travelling in a car and possibly
getting in an accident is a voluntary assumption of risk. Using the “but for” argument for
causality, “but for the action or inaction of Ballard, would Irwin still have been injured?” No.
If Ballard had not been driving carelessly or had not allowed Irwin to be a passenger in her
vehicle with an inoperable passenger seatbelt, Irwin would not have been catastrophically
injured. The damages that occurred to Irwin are irreversible as she is now paraplegic.

Argument against negligence

It can be argued that Ballard is not liable for the injuries to Irwin. Irwin also holds the
Student Standard of Care for herself by agreeing to ride in a vehicle with a faulty passenger
seat belt. Ballard does not hold a duty of care for Irwin as it was Irwin’s voluntary assumption
of risk to be a passenger in her car. There is also the possibility of the defendant “not [being]
liable for a freakish accident or an unpredictable turn of events as these are not reasonably
foreseeable” (Wong, September 2019). Though getting into a vehicle is a voluntary assumption
of risk, the truck being stationary in the road and the need to swerve into the oncoming lane is
not a foreseeable event. Ballard can assume that Irwin voluntarily assumed the risk of harm
when she decided to enter the vehicle with Ballard by knowing the seatbelt was faulty. By
entering the vehicle, and as a result, Ballard can use the volenti defence to refute liability.

Irwin
Argument For Negligence
Irwin can be considered negligent due to not meeting the student standard of care as
noted, “Students have a duty to act with reasonable care for their own safety, i.e., they have to
act reasonably for their age” (Wong, September 2019). Irwin did not fulfill her duty of care
because she lacked caring for herself by not fastening her seatbelt. Although she said she did
there was no evidence according to the reconstructionist . Irwin also did not meet her own
standard of care because she had heard the seatbelt had been inoperative. She chose to sit in
this seat anyway rather than asking if the seatbelt had been repaired or sitting in another seat.
Foreseeability was also not met under the volenti defense. Irwin knew choosing to get into a
vehicle, and not fasten her seatbelt she would be putting herself at risk and chose to do so
anyway. Irwin also cannot be held to a “But For” as she voluntarily chose not to fasten her
seatbelt. Additionally, even if Irwin had fastened the seatbelt she may still have been at risk
because of the inoperability of the seat belt. Irwin sustained catastrophic damages physical
from the incident and likely mental damage and distress due to the extent of her injuries and
the likely traumatic accident.
Argument Against Negligence
Irwin can be considered contributorily negligent because she did not know the extent
of the risk she was taking. Although she may not have fastened her seatbelt she would not have
foreseen the extent of the vehicle accident, or that the opening of the sunroof would lead to
further injury (Consumer Reports, 2013). She also may have been injured even if she was
wearing the seatbelt because it was inoperative. Although Irwin chose not to fasten her seatbelt
or choose another seat with a functioning seatbelt, she could not have foreseen the stationary
truck or Ballard’s reckless driving in response to this.
School/ School board
If it is understood that Waterman is negligent, then according to tort law, both the school
and school board are vicariously liable. As this field trip was a school sponsored event, the
school board should not have approved the field trip outside of city limits. Secondly, the school
should have, if the field trip was approved ensured that the teacher had alternate communal
modes of transportation for students to get to the activity (Wong, 2019). Under the assumption
that Waterman and the students Ballard and Irwin are contributorily negligent the school board
may not be found vicariously liable (Wong, 2019).
Conclusion
To conclude unintentional harm was brought to Irwin due to combined factors of
negligence from multiple individuals including herself. Irwin’s own lack of duty of self-care
in not fastening her seatbelt contributed to her being contributory negligent. Additionally, The
school and Waterman’s lack of acceptable standard of care in not following school policies
heavily contributed to the negligence that led to the incident. Ballard’s reckless driving and
negligence in allowing others to ride in her vehicle when the seatbelt was inoperative also
largely contributed to the outcome of the incident. Overall multiple contributing factors of
negligence led to the unforeseen outcome of the incident.
 References

Alberta Teacher’s Association. Chapter 3: Teacher Liability. (2016).

Teachers.ab.ca.Retrieved 7 October 2019, from
https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-
Professionals/MON-2%20Teachers%20Rights.pdf

Alberta Teachers’ Association. Code of professional conduct. (2004). Retrieved from

https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-
Professionals/IM4E%20Code%20of%20Professional%20Conduct.pdf

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

Liabilities. Retrieved from:
https://www.teachers.ab.ca/SiteCollectionDocuments/ATA/Publications/Teachers-as-
Professionals/MON-2%20Teachers%20Rights.pdf

Donlevy, J.K. (2014). Ethics handout [Class handout]. Retrieved from University of Calgary
D2L site: https://d2l.ucalgary.ca

Wong, H. (2019). Ethics-Application [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from University of

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

Donlevy (2019). Holly Ethics October 15 2019 [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved from
University of Calgary D2L site: https://d2l.ucalgary.ca