Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 1

The Law Assignment: Negligence

Norhan Alniaimy 10121321, Ashley Blanchard 30011447, Megan McClary 30001602, Cecilia

Nguyen 10175036, Sylvia Rutherford 30063190, & Laura Wostradowski 10170632

University of Calgary
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 2

Introduction

The incident occurred on Tuesday, June 9th, 2001 when Amanda Ballard was driving a

fellow student, Prim Irwin back to Trudeau High School following a Physical Education event at

Marabelle Golf Course. The 1999 GMC Envoy that Ballard was driving rolled over, throwing

Irwin from the vehicle leaving her quadriplegic. In our opinion, Amanda Ballard, Prim Irwin,

Lindsay Waterman, the principal, and vicariously the school board are all liable for the injuries

sustained by Irwin. Our arguments for negligence are that Ballard failed to act as a responsible

driver contributing to Irwin’s injuries; Irwin chose to sit in the car knowing the seatbelt was not

functional; Waterman and the principal failed in their duty of care by not confirming the

location of the off-campus activity and failing to confirm the functionality of the vehicle. The

concluding ratio of 20-10-70 for damages should be held respectively for Ballard, Irwin, and

Waterman and the principal.

Test

The tort that will be applied to this case will be an unintentional tort: negligence. This

includes a test for duty of care, standard of care, breach, damages, and causation (Wong, 2019).

Analysis

Case #1: Amanda Ballard

Duty of care. As the driver of the vehicle, Ballard assumed a duty of care towards her

passenger, Irwin.
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 3

Standard of Care. A responsible and prudent driver would have driven safely and not

permitted a passenger to travel in the front seat without a working seatbelt.

Breach. Firstly, Ballard failed to act reasonably as a driver. “Ballard was charged with

Driving Carelessly under section 115(2)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta” (Donlevy, n.d., p.

1). Section 115 of the Traffic Safety Act reads, “(2) A person shall not do any of the following: ...

(b) drive a vehicle on a highway in a manner that constitutes driving carelessly” (Traffic Safety

Act, 2000, p. 133-134). Ballard’s driving caused a “trip” which led to the rollover (“Car Rollover

101,” 2014, para. 4). Ballard also knew that her front passenger side seatbelt was broken, but

she permitted Irwin to sit in the front seat of her vehicle. Thus, she contributed to Irwin’s

injuries, and breached the standard of care.

Causation. Ballard failed to drive safely, which caused the incident.

Case #2: Prim Irwin

Duty of Care. Irwin had a duty of care to herself in assuring her own safety in a vehicle.

Standard of Care. A responsible and prudent passenger would have ensured she was

wearing a properly working seatbelt.

Breach. Irwin did not use a seatbelt in the vehicle. In a rollover crash, “[b]elts help keep

you in the seat so you are not tossed around” (“Car Rollover 101,” 2014, para. 12). She was

aware that the seatbelt was not in working condition as she had overheard the day before and

knowingly chose to sit in the front seat. Similarly, Myers chose to do a skill for the first time

without any training or the presence of a spotter, knowing it was unsafe in Myers v. Peel County
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 4

Board of Education (1981) and in Bain v. Calgary Board of Education (1993), Bain chose to climb

the mountain even though others told him it was unsafe. Irwin also opened the sunroof, which

made it possible for her to be thrown out of the vehicle. Ergo, she contributed to her own

injuries.

Causation. Irwin knowingly chose to sit in a seat in Ballard’s vehicle without a working

seatbelt. Despite conflicting evidence on whether Irwin was wearing a seatbelt at the time of

the incident, we accept the evidence from the accident reconstruction expert who failed to find

evidence that the malfunctioning seatbelt was used. Even though witnesses say Irwin regularly

uses a seatbelt, evidence shows that she failed to do so this time. Failing to use a functioning

seatbelt and opening the sunroof contributed to her own injuries during the incident.

Case #3: Lindsay Waterman, The Principal, & The School Board

Duty of Care. As the supervising teacher for the trip to Marabelle Resort Golf Course,

Waterman had a duty of care to all her students as stated in section 18(1) of the School Act

(2002):

“A teacher while providing instruction or supervision must… (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.”

A teacher also has a duty of care to all her students as stated in section 6 of the Teaching

Quality Standard: “a teacher is bound by standards of conduct expected of a caring,

knowledgeable and reasonable adult entrusted with the custody, care or education of
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 5

students” (Alberta Education, n.d., p. 7). As the principal of the school, they have a duty of care

for all students according to section 20 of the School Act (2002), which states: “A principal of a

school must… (f) maintain order and discipline in the school and on the school grounds and

during activities sponsored or approved by the board.”

Standard of Care. According to common law, a supervising teacher takes on the role, as

stated in Myers v. Peel County Board of Education (1981), of “the careful or prudent parent” (p.

11). An educator’s standard of care is also dictated by in loco parentis where the teacher is

expected to act as a parental delegate responsible for the children (Wong, 2019). In this case, a

prudent, responsible parent would have inspected Ballard’s vehicle to ensure the safety of

Ballard and that each student had their own ride. This is against the “Transportation Guidelines

for Students” (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2). A prudent parent would have also confirmed the location of

the Marabelle Resort Golf Course prior to the field trip.

Breach. Waterman and the principal failed to confirm the location of the off-campus

activity and allowed students to drive their private vehicles even though it did not abide by the

school division’s “Transportation Guidelines for Students” (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2). This states that

the use of private vehicles is only to be permitted if the facility was within city limits. The speed

limit within the city is 40 km/h, whereas the speed limit on the highway was 100 km/h.

Rollovers are more likely to occur in high-speed rural areas (“Car Rollover 101,” 2014, para. 16-

17). Even though, the school had outlined transportation guidelines, which does not permit=

students to transport another student to school-sponsored activities (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2), she

should have still checked to confirm that each student had their own ride. She did not act as a

prudent and responsible parent as per the standard of care dictated by common law and in loco
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 6

parentis in that she did not check Ballard’s car to ensure its safety and that each student had

their own ride.

The parents of both students signed consent forms for the field trip stating that their

children could attend and that the school and its teachers would not be held liable for incidents

where their children were injured (Donlevy, n.d., p. 3). However, permission forms do not waive

the liability of negligent educators (Wong, 2019, p. 30).

The school board is held vicariously liable since Waterman had taken the students to a

curriculum related activity which falls within the scope of her employment, so Waterman and

the principal would be covered by the board according to section 60(1)(b) of the School Act

(School Act, 2000).

Causation. But for Waterman and the principal’s lack of confirmation on the location,

the incident would not have occurred as the students would not have been driving to and from

the activity. Secondly, Waterman’s failure to check the vehicle to ensure the safety of her

students and that each student had their own ride, also led to the incident in that Waterman

could have provided Irwin with alternate transportation, as dictated by the “Transportation

Guidelines for Students” (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2).

Damages

The damages for all cases are compensatory and will comprise of pecuniary damages,

which will include medical bills, and nonpecuniary damages, which will include pain, suffering

and loss of opportunity (Poortvliet, 2019).

THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 7

Conclusion

Ballard, Irwin, and Waterman and the principal with the school board are liable for the

incident that took place on Tuesday, June 9th, 2001 and the injuries Irwin received. A ratio of

20-10-70 for damages should be held respectively for Ballard, Irwin, and Waterman and the

principal (with the school board) as they are all liable. Most damages go to Waterman and the

principal (with the school board) as the incident would have not occurred in the first place if the

location was confirmed by the principal and Waterman.

THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 8

References

Alberta Education. (n.d.). Teaching quality standard [PDF]. Retrieved from

https://education.alberta.ca/media/3739620/standardsdoc-tqs-_fa-web-2018-01-17.pdf

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

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

Car rollover 101: How rollovers happen and what you can do to avoid one. (April 2014).

Consumer Report. Retrieved from

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

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

site: https://d2l.ucalgary.ca

Gu (Litigation guardian of) v. Friesen, 2013 Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota 607 Supreme Court

of British Columbia. (2013). Retrieved from

https://www.achesonlaw.ca/caselaw/2013bcsc0607/

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

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

Poortvliet, K. (2019). Pecuniary & non-pecuniary damages: Definitions & examples. Retrieved

from https://study.com/academy/lesson/pecuniary-non-pecuniary-damages-definition-

examples.html

Traffic Safety Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta. (2000, Chapter T-6). Retrieved from

http://canlii.ca/t/53j09
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 9

School Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta. (2000, Chapter S-3). Retrieved from

http://canlii.ca/t/53j4d

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

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