Running head: STUDENT DRIVERS 1

Law Case: Student Drivers

Alexandra MacKay, Stephenie Mitchell, Jon Moir, Julia Niemczewska, and Brett Toner

Instructor: Dr. J. K. Donlevy

University of Calgary

EDUC 525 Ethics and Law in Education

STUDENT DRIVERS 2

Law Case: Student Drivers

After examining the facts we find the following parties guilty of negligence for the

injuries sustained by Prim Irwin: Lindsay Waterman; the Principal; Amanda Ballard; and Prim

Irwin, who is partially responsible for her own injuries.

Because we find Lindsay Waterman and the Principal to be negligent, pursuant to Section

60 of the School Act (2018a) we find the School Board vicariously liable for the damages to

Prim Irwin. We detail our rationale below:

Lindsay Waterman (and the School Board by vicarious liability)

Duty of Care: As a school teacher, Lindsay Waterman had a duty of care to her students

under the principle of in loco parentis as well as under Section 18 of the School Act (2018a).

Standard of Care: Lindsay Waterman failed in her standard of care because she violated

School District Policy by allowing students to drive outside of town limits during school hours

and for the purposes of a school activity. She also violated her standard of care under Section 18

of the School Act by failing to meet standards for the following sections: 18(1)(a) “provide

instruction competently to students”, and 18(1)(f) “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”

(2018a, s.18).

Foreseeability: The accident was foreseeable because the School District Policy had

regulations in place to prevent students from driving on the highway for the purposes of school

activities for the very reason of wanting to avoid dangerous accidents on the highway.

Causation: BUT FOR Lindsay Waterman scheduling a school activity outside of town

limits and allowing students to drive on the highway to and from that activity, Ballard and Irwin
STUDENT DRIVERS 3

would not have been on the highway, the accident would not have happened, and Prim Irwin

would not have been injured.

Damages: Lindsay Waterman (and the School Board, by vicarious liability) is liable for

damages to Prim Irwin (School Act, 2018a, s.60).

Negligence: Lindsay Waterman (and the School Board, by vicarious liability) is guilty of

the unintentional tort of negligence as her actions resulted in damages done to Irwin (School Act,

2018a, s.60). Waterman is guilty of negligence on the basis of non-feasance because she failed to

take positive steps to protect her students from harm: she scheduled a school activity outside of

town limits and allowed students to drive on the highway to and from that activity (Donlevy,

2018). This was in direct violation of the School District Policy and put the students’ safety at

risk.

Principal (and the School Board by vicarious liability)

Duty of Care: As a representative of the School board, the Principal had a duty of care to

the School Board to uphold the School District Policy, as well as to the students, teachers, and

School Board under Section 20 of the School Act (2018a).

Standard of Care: For the purposes of our analysis, the Principal is responsible for

ensuring school field trips align with School District Policy before approving them. The

Principal failed in their standard of care because they violated School District Policy by

approving Lindsay Waterman’s golf course field trip without providing school transportation,

despite the fact that the golf course was outside town limits. They also violated their standard of

care under Section 20 of the School Act by failing to meet standards for the following sections:

20(b) “ensure that the instruction provided by the teachers employed in the school is consistent

with the course of study and education programs prescribed, approved or authorized pursuant to
STUDENT DRIVERS 4

[the School Act]” and 20(f) “maintain order and discipline in the school and on the school

grounds and during activities sponsored or approved by the board” (2018a, s.20).

Foreseeability: The accident was foreseeable because the School District Policy had

regulations in place to prevent students from driving on the highway.

Causation: BUT FOR the Principal approving the field trip without providing

transportation (despite it being in violation of School District Policy), Ballard and Irwin would

not have been on the highway and the accident would not have occurred.

Damages: The Principal (and the School Board, by vicarious liability) is liable for

damages to Prim Irwin.

Negligence: The Principal (and the School Board, by vicarious liability) is guilty of the

unintentional tort of negligence as their actions resulted in damages done to Irwin (School Act,

2018a, s.60). The Principal is guilty of negligence on the basis of non-feasance because they

failed to take positive steps to protect the students from harm: in approving the field trip without

providing transportation the Principal allowed the students to drive on the highway to and from

the school activity. This was in direct violation of School District Policy and put the students’

safety at risk (Donlevy, 2018).

Amanda Ballard

Duty of Care: As a licensed and registered driver, Amanda had a duty of care to herself

and her passengers to operate her vehicle in a safe manner, and to ensure everyone in her vehicle

had access to a functional seatbelt.

Standard of Care: Ballard violated her standard of care to Irwin by driving in an unsafe

manner. We know this is accurate because Ballard was charged with Driving Carelessly under

Section 115(2)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act (2018b, s.115). Ballard also violated her standard of
STUDENT DRIVERS 5

care to Irwin by failing to ensure she was in a seat with a functional seatbelt but, for the purposes

of this analysis, we find that the conclusion drawn by the accident reconstruction expert is

accurate: there is no evidence that Irwin was wearing the malfunctioning seatbelt. It was

Ballard’s reckless and careless driving that resulted in the vehicle rollover and that ultimately led

to the catastrophic injuries suffered by Prim Irwin.

Foreseeability: The accident was foreseeable because it was likely that Ballard’s careless

driving on the highway would have resulted in an accident.

Causation: BUT FOR Ballard passing and swerving recklessly on the highway, the

vehicle would not have rolled over and Prim Irwin would not have been injured.

Damages: Amanda Ballard is liable for damages to Prim Irwin.

Negligence: Amanda Ballard is guilty of the unintentional tort of negligence as her

actions resulted in damages done to Irwin. Ballard is guilty of negligence on the basis of non-

feasance because she failed to take positive steps to protect her passenger from harm: she failed

to drive safely on the highway, which led to the vehicle rolling over and which caused Prim

Irwin to suffer catastrophic injuries (Donlevy, 2018).

Prim Irwin

Duty of Care: Irwin owed a duty of care to herself, as a reasonable person, to sit in a seat

with a functional seatbelt and to use that seatbelt to ensure her own safety.

Standard of Care: For the purposes of this analysis, we find that the conclusion drawn by

the accident reconstruction expert is accurate: there is no evidence that Irwin was wearing the

malfunctioning seatbelt. Therefore, Irwin failed in her standard of care to herself by choosing not

to wear her seatbelt, and by choosing to sit in the front passenger seat even though she was aware

the seatbelt was malfunctioning.

STUDENT DRIVERS 6

Foreseeability: It is foreseeable that in neglecting to wear a seatbelt Irwin might have

suffered injuries in the event of an accident.

Causation: BUT FOR Irwin choosing not to wear her seatbelt she may not have been so

seriously injured in the event of an accident.

Damages: Prim Irwin is partially responsible for the substantial injuries she suffered in

the accident.

Negligent: Prim Irwin is guilty of negligence because she did not take reasonable steps to

protect herself from harm.

Defences to Negligence

We would like to consider the following defences to negligence for this case:

Volenti non fit injuria: Prim Irwin voluntarily assumed some responsibility for her own

risk because she knew the seatbelt in the front passenger seat of Amanda Ballard’s vehicle was

malfunctioning and, in getting into Ballard’s vehicle, both Ballard and Irwin willingly

participated in the risky activity of highway driving. We do not find Volenti non fit injuria

applicable in this situation because Irwin did not consent to Ballard driving carelessly, and did

not give up her right to sue in the event of Ballard’s careless driving.

Contributory negligence: Prim Irwin is partially liable for some of the damages she

suffered under Section 3.1 of the Contributory Negligence Act because she neglected to wear a

seatbelt and knowingly chose to sit in a seat with a malfunctioning seatbelt (2002, s.3.1). This

constituted an “act or omission . . . whether or not another person [Ballard] had the opportunity

to avoiding the consequences of that act or omission [choosing not to wear a seatbelt] and failed

to do so” (Contributory Negligence Act, 2002, s. 3.1), so Prim Irwin is contributorily negligent in

this situation.
STUDENT DRIVERS 7

Works Cited

Alberta Teachers’ 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. (n.d.). Student Drivers [Class handout]. Werklund School of Education. Retrieved

from University of Calgary D2L site:

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/234353/viewContent/3149149/View

Donlevy, J. K. (2018, September 27). SEPT 27 2018 #6 copy [PowerPoint Slides]. Retrieved

from https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/234353/viewContent/3170217/View

Province of Alberta (2002). Contributory Negligence Act. Retrieved from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/c27.pdf

Province of Alberta (2018a). School Act. Retrieved from

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

Province of Alberta. (2018b). Traffic Safety Act. Retrieved from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf