Law & Ethics in Education final paper

1. An Unfortunate Accident Analysis
EDUC 525
July 15th, 2019
Submitted to Dr. Donlevy
Submitted by:
Khan, Faryal
Mathis, Julia
Thibault, Samantha
Uyouko, Nse-Abasi

2. Upon analysis of the facts, we find the following people are liable for the injuries to Irwin:
Prim Irwin
Irwin had a duty of care to herself as someone of 16 years of age. Alberta transportation
law states that passengers 16 years and older are responsible to ensure they use a seatbelt and if
found in violation, they can be fined (Alberta Government, 2019, p. 90). Irwin had an obligation
to do what a responsible and prudent person would have done. A responsible and prudent person
would have put on a seatbelt before travelling in the vehicle. Regardless of whether the seatbelt
worked or not, and whether Irwin had heard about the issue, she would have discovered that the
seat belt was broken if she had attempted to put it on. While the fact pattern provides conflicting
information as to whether or not the seat belt was used and whether or not Irwin was aware of
any issue with the seat belt, on a balance of probabilities it is likely that Irwin was aware it was
broken and still chose to sit in the front passenger seat. Additionally, Irwin had opened the
sunroof on the vehicle, which a prudent and reasonable person would not have done while
travelling at high speed while not wearing a seat belt. Irwin also could have received
transportation from Waterman, as set out in the School Division Policy, “Physical education
instructor [sic] will provide transportation for any students who are not able to get to the facility”
(Donlevy, n.d.).
Amanda Ballard
Ballard had a duty of care as the driver and registered owner of the vehicle to drive
responsibly and ensure the security of her passenger. Ballard had previous knowledge of the
defective seatbelt, which she understood as being so defective as to require an appointment to get
it repaired and not let anyone ride in the passenger seat in the meantime. Ballard failed to meet

3. the standard of care expected of a responsible and prudent person. Her first responsibility was to
ensure that Irwin was aware the seatbelt was not functioning and to require them to use another
available seat. Furthermore, when driving, Ballard had an obligation to drive with care. As
evident in Ballard being charged with Driving Carelessly under section 115(2)(b) of the Traffic
Safety Act of Alberta (Donlevy, n.d.), she failed to meet her standard of care. Taking into
consideration the speed and roadway that was used to get from the venue, it was reasonably
foreseeable that an accident could have occurred. But for Ballard driving carelessly, the vehicle
would not have flipped over, causing Irwin to be ejected through the sunroof, sustaining the
catastrophic damages. The only applicable defence for Ballard would be contributory negligence
on the part of Irwin.
Lindsey Waterman - School Board is vicariously liable (Section 144.1(1) of the School Act)
Waterman had a duty of care (Section 18(1) of the School Act) as it was a school activity
taking place during school hours. Teachers’ Rights Responsibilities and Legal Liabilities
(2013) outlines as follows: “Thus, a teacher could be liable for damage caused to a pupil where
the teacher’s conduct falls below the standard of care commonly accepted as being reasonable in
a parent–child relationship” (Alberta Teachers’ Association, 2013, p. 24). In the case at hand,
Waterman had a duty of care to her pupils to ensure that she would do what a responsible and
prudent parent would do, as the Common Law also requires that "teachers act upon a particular
standard of care to meet their duty of care. Teachers must act as would a prudent parent in
protecting students from harm, which is reasonably foreseeable" (Donlevy et al, 2008, Common
Law 1.4.2.2.). Thus, the teacher was negligent in enforcing the School Division Policy and
Trudeau High School Directive # 1 (Donlevy, n.d.) in regard to transportation. Waterman had a

4. duty to be aware of whether the activity took place within town limits. Waterman had knowledge
of Ballard driving her personal vehicle as Waterman was the one who performed a visual
inspection prior to travelling to the golf course. Furthermore, with the students under the care of
Waterman, it is reasonable to assume that Waterman would have knowledge surrounding which
students were leaving and with whom or how they were returning to school. On a balance of
probabilities, it would be reasonable to foresee that the chance of an accident on a highway with
a speed limit of 100km/hr is far greater than within town limits, where the speed limit is
40km/hr. But for the teacher allowing Ballard to use a personal vehicle to transport another
student on a highway out of town boundaries the accident would not have transpired, and Irwin
would not have sustained the injuries that occurred. The only applicable defence for Waterman
would be contributory negligence on the part of Irwin.
The Principal - School Board is vicariously liable (Section 144.1(1) of the School Act)
Duty of Care (Section 20 of the School Act) exists because this was a school activity
during school hours and would have required the principal’s approval. Regarding meeting the
expected standard of care, the principal failed to notify Waterman that the activity was located
out of the town’s boundaries and thus the School Division Policy regarding transportation should
have been enforced. On a balance of probabilities, it would be reasonable to foresee that the
chance of an accident on a highway with a speed limit of 100km/hr is far greater than within
town limits where the speed limit is 40km/hr. The administration of the school approved the trip
and failed to assess whether transportation services were needed for students. The administration
should have known that the golf course was outside town limits and required changes to the
transportation arrangements. The School Division Policy states that, “No secondary school

5. student, irrespective of age, may drive a private vehicle transporting other students to school-
sponsored activities during school hours or as school representatives, except to use local facilities
within the town or village boundaries for activities that are an integral part of instruction”
(Donlevy, n.d.). As the School Division Policy is repeated in the Trudeau High School Directive
# 1, the Principal would have had involvement in the drafting and approval of that school policy.
Therefore, the school board is vicariously liable for the injuries to Prim Irwin. The only
applicable defence for the Principal would be contributory negligence on the part of Irwin.

6. REFERENCES
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., Chomas, J., & Walker, K. D. (2008). A guide to Alberta school law. [Kindle].
Available from Amazon.ca. https://www.amazon.ca/Guide-Alberta-School-Law-
ebook/dp/B075B14Z8F/ref=sr_1_3?keywords=guide+to+alberta+school+law&qid=1560
353096&s=dig ital-text&sr=1-3).
Donlevy, J.K. (n.d.). An unfortunate accident. [class handout]. Retrieved from
https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/265761/Home
Driver’s Guide to Operation, Safety, Licensing. Alberta Government. (2019). Retrieved from
https://open.alberta.ca/dataset/ddca813d-5463-4daa-afc9-
093807a1bb6a/resource/9257b32f-be19-427d-9518-0f65f6f2d004/download/govt-of-ab-
drivers-guide-2019-03.pdf
Government of Alberta. (2019). School Act. Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/s03.pdf