EDUC 525

LT #1 - Negligence Case
Carl Landra, Mark McGovern, Emily McMullen, James Walsh

We find that Amanda Ballard, Prim Irwin, Lindsay Waterman and the principal of

Trudeau High School are negligent in this case.

A. Amanda Ballard

As the fully licensed owner of the car, Ballard can be held liable for damages. The driver

of a vehicle has a duty of care to their passengers. A reasonable and prudent person would not

have let their passenger sit in a seat with a malfunctioning seat belt, even if the seatbelt is not

being worn by the passenger. Ballard knew that the front passenger side seat belt wasn’t

functioning correctly; therefore, it is reasonably foreseeable that Irwin might be injured should

an accident occur. However, damages would not have occurred but for Ballard’s decision to go

into the oncoming lane to avoid the parked truck without first making sure that it was safe and

she had enough time to do so. Ballard’s reckless driving maneuver resulted in the rollover of the

car and Irwin’s injuries.

B. Lindsay Waterman

In evaluating if Lindsay Waterman was negligent regarding the injuries of Prim Irwin, we

have determined that she was. As Waterman was the supervising teacher she had a duty of care

to Irwin during this time. Waterman also had a standard of care that was on par with what a

reasonable parent would do (in loco parentis). Waterman is also held to this standard under

Section 18(1f), which states that she is to “maintain… order and discipline among the students

while they are…attending or participating in activities sponsored or approved by the board.”

There is no requirement for Waterman to have additional training, so she does not have a supra

parental standard of care in this case. It was foreseeable that there could be issues arising from
Waterman’s actions surrounding this event. Both the district and school policies stated that

students are not allowed to drive “other students to school-sponsored activities during school

hours…except to use local facilities within the town or village boundaries.” In allowing Ballard

to drive Irwin to an activity outside of town boundaries, it was foreseeable by both policy

creators that issues could arise.

By dismissing the students early, it is foreseeable that any issue would be made worse by

this situation. Waterman is the responsible teacher until school is dismissed, and by allowing the

students to leave early, she is not able to assist or support students in the case of any difficulties

that they encounter, such as Ballard’s accident. Waterman is not deemed to be responsible to

check that Ballard’s vehicle is in working condition before they departed the school, as this is

above what a reasonable parent would do. But for Waterman allowing Ballard to drive Irwin

home, the damages would not have occurred to the extent that they did. By allowing Ballard and

Irwin to depart after dismissing the students early, she was in violation of both the school and

school board’s policies. Waterman would be at least partially responsible for the damages to be

paid to Irwin for her injuries. The payment of these damages would be covered by the school

board’s insurance indemnifying their employees.

C. The Principal of Trudeau High School

In evaluating if the principal of Trudeau High School was negligent in regard to the injuries

of the students, we have determined that he/she was. The principal has the duty to take

reasonable care for the safety and welfare of the students travelling, during, and leaving the

school activity (especially during school hours). This is in line with Section 20 of the School Act,

which states that “A principal of a school must (a) provide a welcoming, caring, respectful and

safe learning environment that respects diversity and fosters a sense of belonging;” Therefore,
the principal did not exercise his/her duty of care to take such measures that are reasonable in all

circumstances.

Firstly, breaching section 45 (8) where the responsibility to provide a “safe and caring

environment”, the principal should taken reasonable steps to minimize the risk of reasonably

foreseeable harm. Specifically, having actually known where the events were taking place

(whether in town or not) and by not enforcing a student driving policy that allows students to

drive other students to and from educational activities breaches this part of the section. When an

agency is responsible for the safety of children, performing the standard of care expected of a

prudent citizen or parent is not adequate; the standard of care in this instance is that of a

reasonable and prudent professional. Therefore, being that 2 out of 3 schools in the same school

district enforced driving policies where despite the educational activity taking place outside of

school, students are not allowed to drive other students. The school administration did not meet

the professional standard of care that a reasonable professional would undertake therefore

making the principal/school admin negligent.

Based on the principal creating a school-policy that allowed for students to drive one

another to and from school activities, it is foreseeable (although a risk does not have to be

probable or likely to occur) that issues could arise. Additionally, it is likely that the field trip

would have needed approval from a school administrator, or at least that the administration was

aware of the field trip. Consequently, it was foreseeable that the trip was outside of local

facilities and therefore breached the school driving policy in place. However, it is not stated that

they were aware of this. If they were aware, this would be additional causation for their

negligence. But for the principal not having the appropriate driving policy in place, the incident

that led to damages would not have taken place. The school board would be required to
indemnify the students medical/injury costs that arise at the time. Furthermore, because Irwin

suffered injuries that are life-altering, they would have to be indemnified for future

considerations.

D. Prim Irwin

Prim Irwin has a reasonable expectation upon herself to exercise a standard of care

towards her own safety. When travelling in a vehicle in Alberta, it is lawful that one is required

to wear a seatbelt. When, in this case, it was made clear that Ballard’s vehicle did not have an

operational seatbelt in the passenger seat it was incumbent upon Irwin to find another seat with

an operational seatbelt or to find another means of transportation. By failing to obey the law

Irwin is negligent in her actions.

It is foreseeable that in the event of a motor vehicle accident the failure to wear a seatbelt

can exacerbate the potential for injury, or the seriousness of injuries incurred. It is reasonable to

think that in deciding not to refuse the ride, find alternative transportation, or switch to a seat

with a functional seatbelt that Irwin was aware of the increased risk to her person in the event of

a crash. But for Irwin’s decision to accept the ride without use of a seatbelt, this unfortunate

series of events would not have taken place. Damages are to be received in accordance to her

individual pain and suffering, the time required of Irwin’s parents for her personal care (and the

loss of present and future income resulting from this), and for her future loss of income as a

result of her paralyzation, in line with quantum meruit.

E. Defenses

In looking at the defense from Ballard, the doctrine of volenti non fit injuria should be

considered in relation to Irwin’s actions. By not wearing a seatbelt, Irwin was accepting the risk

of damages from an accident while travelling in the vehicle. However, Irwin did not
acknowledge that she would not sue if injury were to occur, so only half of volenti non fit injuria

can be applied. Therefore, as both conditions are not met, volenti non fit injuria does not apply to

Irwin in this case. Similarly, contributory negligence needs to be investigated as well. While

Irwin had not been wearing a seatbelt, as suggested by the accident reconstruction expert, it was

not the primary cause of the damages. It is true that her injuries would not have been as grave

had she been wearing a seatbelt or ensured that she had access to a functioning seatbelt. This is

proven by the fact that Ballard, who was wearing a seatbelt at the time of the accident, did not

sustain serious injuries. Therefore, Irwin was contributorily negligent, applying to Ballard,

Waterman and the principal.

 References

School Act. (2000). Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter S-3 Current as of September 1,

2018. Retrieved from the Government of Alberta website:

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