Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Introduction
On June 9, 2017, two Peter Lougheed High School students, Sylvia Ballard and Prim
Jasmin, were involved in a car accident while driving back to school from a physical education
Sylvia Ballard, a 16-year-old student, pleaded guilty to Driving Carelessly under section
115(2)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta. Ballard was the driver in a rollover accident,
which resulted in the injury of Prim Jasmin, a 17-year-old student. We will determine the
1. Duty of Care: A party is responsible to provide a standard of care for others to ensure that
2. Standard of Care: Under the duty of care, an individual has the responsibility to provide
decisions and the damage or injury that will result to those in their care.
4. Causality: As a result of negligence, the defendant breached the Duty of Care, causing
5. Damages: The damages that ensued from the negligence of the defendant.
Duty of Care: As the driver and owner of the vehicle, it was Ballard’s responsibility to protect
Jasmin. Ballard breached the duty of care by failing to provide Jasmin with an operative seat
STUDENT DRIVER CASE STUDY 3
belt. According to her parents, Ballard was aware that the passenger seat belt was not operating
and was told not to allow anyone to ride in the passenger seat.
Standard of Care: Ballard allowed Jasmin to ride in the passenger seat with an inoperative seat
Foreseeability: It was foreseeable that the lack of a functioning seat belt could jeopardize safety.
It was also foreseeable that failing to slow down and anticipate potential barriers would increase
Duty of Care: According to the Alberta Traffic Safety Act (2017) and Transportation Guidelines
for Students provided by Peter Lougheed High School, every individual in a vehicle must wear a
seat belt. It was Jasmin’s responsibility to find, and use, a functioning seat belt.
Standard of Care: Jasmin stated that she was aware of a conversation about the inoperable seat
belt. Despite this awareness, Jasmin still sat in the front passenger seat.
Foreseeability: It was foreseeable that getting into a vehicle with an inexperienced driver and
Causality: Jasmin failed to take initiative for her own safety. This negligence contributed to her
injuries.
Duty of Care: According to the principle of in loco parentis, Waterman held the responsibilities
of a caring parent (EDUC 525, October 5, PowerPoint 7, Slide 32). As the teacher, it was
STUDENT DRIVER CASE STUDY 4
Waterman’s duty to adhere to the school policy and to provide students with a safe field trip,
Standard of Care: As students were dismissed 25 minutes prior to dismissal, Ballard and Jasmin
were still under the supervision of Waterman. Teachers are responsible for supervising all
activities on board regulated field trips. Any unplanned situations must be prevented (Bain v.
CBE, 1993).
Foreseeability: It was foreseeable that failing to determine the location of the facility could
increase the potential for rural driving, breaching school policy and putting students at risk.
Causality: If Waterman had confirmed the location of the facility, it would have been revealed
that it was outside of city limits. This would have prohibited Ballard from driving Jasmin.
Duty of Care: Section 20 (f) of the Alberta School Act reveals the Principal’s responsibility to
maintain order “during activities sponsored or approved by the board”. The Principal breached
this duty by failing to confirm field trip details and by neglecting to ensure all staff was aware of
school policy.
Standard of Care: It was the Principal’s responsibility to make sure the field trip followed policy.
According to the School District Administrative Policy, no secondary students are permitted to
drive other students to school-sponsored activities outside of town limits during school hours.
Foreseeability: Had the Principal analyzed the field trip plan, any issues with transportation
Causality: The Principal approved Waterman’s field trip without confirming the details, allowing
students to drive others outside of city limits. He also failed to ensure all staff was following the
Duty of Care: Peter Lougheed High School is one of three schools in the Okatoks School
District. The Principal at Peter Lougheed High allowed for a negligent policy to remain in place.
Standard of Care: The School District Administrative Policy Transportation Guidelines for
Students allowed students to drive each other within city limits. Administrators from the other
two schools changed their School policy to increase safety. By not establishing a safe and
consistent policy, the Okatoks School District failed to provide a reasonable standard of care.
Foreseeability: It was foreseeable that the policy put in place by the School District would allow
Causality: A policy that prohibited student driving to activities would have prevented the
injuries.
As a result of the accident, Jasmin is quadriplegic. There are substantial general and
special damages associated with this incident (EDUC 525, October 3, PowerPoint 6, Slide 31).
As her injuries were extensive, she will be dependent on others and will require additional
Analysis
STUDENT DRIVER CASE STUDY 6
While Ballard, and, through vicarious liability, her parents, should be held liable 20% of
According to volenti non fit injuria, you cannot claim for an injury for which you
volunteered (EDUC 525, October 3, PowerPoint 6, Slide 25-26). Jasmin voluntarily entered
Ballard’s vehicle and sat in the passenger seat. Jasmin should be held liable for 5% of damages.
Waterman should be liable for 20% of the damages as she failed to provide appropriate
care for her students by not confirming all details necessary for a safe field trip.
Due to the negligent policy in place by Peter Lougheed High School, we have allocated a
shared liability of 55% to the Principal of Peter Lougheed High School and the Okatoks School
District. The board has an insurance policy in place which is required under Section 54(1) of the
Excellent work!.
Your analysis is strong and well supported by in-text referencing. You have correctly
assessed liability to more than one party. With regard to the School District, the Board
is vicariously liable due to the principal and the teacher not following the school’s
Transportation Guidelines for Students. The teacher submitted, and the Principal
approved the field trip, in violation of school policy. Thus, the school approved a
school sponsored event to an out of town venue and permitted students to drive
students in contravention of policy. If the event was to be held at the Countryside Golf
Club students should not have been driving themselves and other students. This was a
school sponsored event and therefore a breach of policy for which the Board is
vicariously liable.
If you want to argue, as you did, the high school should have a different policy you
can go there, but remember the courts will give difference to school officials. The
courts will however, hold the school and the district to their policies and processes. In
this case, the school did not follow the policy they had in place, which if followed,
would have prevented the accident. Given the duty of care, and the serious breach of
policy, I would accordingly change the apportioned responsibility for damages. I
STUDENT DRIVER CASE STUDY 7
would see the Board substantially more liable and apportion the remaining to Ballard
and Prim for the reasons you have cited.
Very solid use of APA……Excellent work! ……A
References
Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, 1993 CanLII 7301, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.
http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/1993/1993canlii7301/1993canlii7301.html
STUDENT DRIVER CASE STUDY 8
Education 525. (2017). Student driver case [Learning task handout]. Retrieved from University
Parsons, D. (2017). October 3, 2017 Class #6 [in-class discussion]. Retrieved from University of
Calgary.
Parsons, D. (2017). October 5, 2017 Class #7 [in-class discussion]. Retrieved from University of
Calgary.
School Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta. (2000, Chapter S-3). Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s03.pdf
Schroeder, R. (2013). Canadian law 12: Negligence and other torts. Retrieved from:
http://npc.gvsd.ca/web/rschroeder/2013%20-%20Canadian%20Law%20PowerPoints/PP
T%2012%20-%20Negligence%20and%20Tort.pdf
https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/laws/stat/rsa-2000-c-t-6/