You are on page 1of 12

Duty of Care All people have a responsibility to take reasonable measures to avoid

causing harm to others where the injury is reasonably foreseeable. The imposition of a
duty of care does not require a person to take steps to eliminate the possibility of harm,
only to take reasonable steps to minimize the risk of injury.
Due Process A constitutional guarantee that all legal proceedings will be fair and that
one will be given notice of the proceedings and an opportunity to be heard before the
government acts to take away ones life, liberty or property.
In loco parentis Same authority as a reasonable and careful parent. Responsible for
the physical safety of the child.
Fiduciary relationships
- The relationship that teachers have with students if a fiduciary one
- A fiduciary relation is defined as a person who stands in a position of trust and
confidence towards another and has a duty to act in that persons best interest
- Teachers have a special position due to the particular vulnerability of children in
those positions of authority over them
- Discretion, influence, and vulnerability are inherent in this relationship
- Teachers are legally held to this relationship and are expected to act in the best
interests of children.
Negligence Teachers may be held negligent if:
- There must be a legal duty to care. Teachers have that duty during school hours
and at school activities.
- Negligence can only occur if there is a breach of the duty to care. Less than what
we would expect from a reasonable, caring individual.
- Some harm or damage must come from the breach in care.
Liability and Supervision TRRL Ch. 3 Adequate supervision does not mean constant
supervision of all students at all times that is not reasonable. The teachers duty is to
guard against dangers that could be reasonably foreseen, not to keep students under
direct observation every moment. The extent of supervision required depends on the
age, mental ability and emotional stability of the students being supervised. If there is a
lack of supervision, it would have to be shown that the failure to supervise caused or
contributed to the injury. Negligence will be determined by a judgment of what was
reasonable in a particular set of circumstances.
Oakes Test
- If the government infringed upon the right of a person or persons, then they do
the Oakes Test.
- 3 main steps to the oaks test and the government (plaintiff) must prove each
step is justified
- 1. Prescribed by law the limitation on a persons rights must be part of a law,
statute, or regulation (policy) that is within the governments jurisdiction.
- 2. Pressing and substantial the purpose of law must be important to society.
- 3. Proportionality the government has to find reasonable ways to achieve or
implement the legislation
o A. Rational connection the limitation must be rational connected to the
objective of the law in question
o Minimal impairment the Charter right must be impaired or infringed upon
as little as possible
o Proportionate effect balance the negative effects of any limitation of a
right with the positive effects at a societal level.
Natural Justice 1. The Person judging any particular situation should not be biased. 2.
The accused has the right to fair hearing and the opportunity to tell their side of the
story.
Reasonableness What a reasonable person would be expected to do in a situation.

Legal Frameworks
Alberta School Act
- Section 8: Every child has the right to education.
- Section 18: A teacher must regularly evaluate students and periodically report
the results to students parents and the board
- Section 20: The duties of a principal
- Section 22: The right of having school council
- Section 60: Every board must carry liability insurance to cover the board and the
teachers under it.
- Section 78: Accountability of the school board
- Section 96(1): Schools are allowed to appoint their own assistant principles.
Criminal Code
- 265(1) A person commits assault when:
o (a) Without the consent of another person, he applies force intentionally to
that other person, directly or indirectly;
o (b) he attempts or threatens, by an act or gesture, to apply for to another
person, if he has, or causes that other person to believe on reasonable
grounds that he has, present ability to effect his purpose; or
o (c) while openly wearing or carrying a weapon or an imitation thereof, he
accosts or impedes another person or begs.
- 245 (1) Every one who administers or causes to be administered to any person
or causes any person to take poison or any other destructive or noxious thing is
guilty of an indictable offence and liable
o (a) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding fourteen years, if he intends
thereby to endanger the life of or to cause bodily harm to that person; or
o (b) to imprisonment for a term not exceeding two years, if he intends
thereby to aggrieve or annoy that person.

ATA Code of Conduct


Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms
- Section 2: Guarantees to all Canadians the freedom of religion, belief, assembly
and association.
- Section 7 and 11: Natural Justice
- Section 15: Equality Rights, Freedom from discrimination

Case Analysis Terms


Teleological Considers all the consequences of actions, the greatest amount of
good/benefits, maximizing the greater good.
- What are the benefits we are aiming at? Are these benefits worthwhile? Are they
unintended consequences we should consider? Whom do we intend to benefit?
Are there others who are affected?
Deontological Absolute and universal principals are more important than
consequences. All people are treated as equally worthy treat others as you want to be
treated. Use the 5 ethical principals for both Teacher & student perspective
- Are we being consistent? How would you feel if you were treated like this? Are we
respecting people? Are the benefits distributed fairly?
Respect for Autonomy Honouring the dignity of all persons. Their right to make
individual decisions. Includes keeping confidentiality, and allowing students to form their
own judgments.
Nonmaleficence Not causing harm. Protecting students from harm.
Benifecence Contributing to the well-being of others. The responsibility to provide aid
to those in need of assistance.
Fidelity Faithfulness, loyalty, honesty, and trustworthiness between teachers,
students, parents and society. Placing the interests of students before your own interests.
Justice Act fairly and to treat people fairly; respect dignity and rights of all persons.
Tips!
Dont
- Negate the case
- Over-fictionalize the case. (i.e., be aware of the what ifs)
- Overanalyzing the teleological approach
- Using the claim that the weakness of the teleological approach is that you cannot
know al the consequences
- Failing to resolve the case
Dos
- Apply the appropriate concepts involved in the case
- Be detailed and thorough in your responses.
- Provide logical argument for your reasons. Include well-developed and well-
supported arguments that reference materials and other case studies from the
class
- Try to raise provocative ethical and/or legal questions in your resolution that
point to implications of the case for classroom educators.
Case I

Miss. Hussein is in her fifth year of teaching at a local elementary school in a rural
town in the western part of Alberta. She teaches a grade 2-3 split class with 26 students.
In her email that morning, Miss. Hussein had seen a notification from their Principal
stating that there would be a fire drill during the third block, which was right before
recess. Miss. Hussein sighed and shook her head; it was the second fire drill of the year
and they were quickly approaching report cards. She needed her students to finish their
math projects and this fire drill was cutting right into her plans. However, weather wise
it was going to be a nice day for March so Miss. Hussein made a quick decision to move
art into the third block and move their math projects to later in the afternoon.
During the morning carpet time, Miss. Hussein went over the procedure for fire drills
and reminded students of how they were to behave (ex. No talking during the drill, keep
their shoes on at all times, no one was to run ahead or away from the class as they were
walking in a line out of the building, they were to follow the teacher at all times, keep up
with the class, and stay together). She had some of the students repeat the drill
expectations and was satisfied that all of her students were listening and with how they
repeated the instructions back to her.
The morning went relatively well and halfway during art, the fire alarm went. Miss.
Hussein quickly asked the students to line-up at the door, as she went to her desk to
get the class list and a pencil. On her way to the front of the line, she looked at the
students feet to ensure everyone had their shoes on. Satisfied, she put her
finger to her mouth to quiet the class down and then proceeded to lead the class out of
the room and down the hall to the exit. In the hallway and at the exit door, Miss. Hussein
turned to check on the class to ensure everyone was following expectations. As she
exited the building, she once again checked the class everything seemed okay. She
then proceeded down the sidewalk to the crosswalk, where the principal was stopping
traffic so everyone could cross the street quickly.
While walking down the sidewalk, Miss. Husseins class fell in line with 2 other
classes, grade 1 and grade 4. The grade 4 teacher asked his students to stay in
their line, but some of them near the back were goofing around and ended up falling
into the line with Miss. Husseins class. As the three classes continued down the
sidewalk, the classes became more intermingled at the back of the line. As they were
crossing the road, a bunch of the grade 4 students tried to move their way back over to
their class and began to shove students from Miss. Husseins class and the grade 1 class
out of their way. The principal did not notice, as he was busy ensuring the cars waited
for the kids to cross and was watching the grade 5 classes approaching the crosswalk.
Miss. Hussein and the other 2 teachers did not notice either, as they were leading their
classes and were discussing where they were to stop in the field they were entering.
Samantha, a grade 2 student in Miss. Husseins class, was shoved quite hard during the
altercation, and tripped over a student beside her and fell onto the pavement. In trying
to brace her fall, she stuck her hands out. After hitting the ground, Samantha let out a
loud, painful wail and several students shouted out to Miss. Hussein and the principal to
come help.
Miss. Hussein rushed to Samanthas side and noticed immediately that her wrist was
out of place, most likely broken, along with several scrapes to her hands and face. The
principal called one of the firefighters over, who then radioed for an ambulance. The
principal stayed with Samantha to help calm her down as the firefighter administered
first aid and they waited for the ambulance, and Miss. Hussein went back to her class.
While waiting, the principal phoned Samanthas parents.
A few weeks later, Samanthas parents commenced an action suit against Miss.
Hussein and the school board for the physical injuries Samantha had sustained and for
the emotional distress she had experienced from the fire drill and physical abuse.
Samanthas parents alleged that the school board had insufficient supervision during the
fire drill, particularly as the students were crossing the street, and that Miss. Hussein was
negligent for not having done enough to prevent the pushing and shoving of the
students during the fire drill. Samanthas parents felt that all actions of the teacher and
principal fell below the standard of care required of those in positions of authority over
their child.

Identification
Who are the individuals/groups involved in the case & what are their perspectives /4

Samanthas Parents / Samantha Miss Hussein and the schoolboard provided insufficient
supervision during the fire drill and that Miss. Hussein was negligent for not having done
enough to prevent the pushing and shoving of the students during the fire drill. They felt
that the actions fell below the standard of care required for those in positions of authority
over their child.
Miss Hussein / School Board Took necessary procedures to ensure a safe fire drill. Miss
Hussein would argue that she checked the shoes of the students before exiting the
classroom. During the drill she checked was constantly looking out for dangers.
Unreasonable for her to be expected to supervise all the time at all times.

What are the relevant legal & ethical issues for this case? /4 marks (Does a relevant
standard of conduct, ethical principle or standard, or professional guideline exist?)

Negligence
Benificence / Non-malificence
Standard of Care
In Loco Parentis
Liability & Supervision
Fidelity
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (7) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice.
School Act Section 18(1a) A teacher while providing instruction or supervision must
provide instruction completely to students.

Consideration
Are there any personal biases present? Explain why or why not. /2

No instruction was given before exiting the building on how to line up. This was the
second fire drill and she assumed that the children knew what to do. She did not tell
them to stay in their own lines and assumed the students listened to the grade 4 teacher
about the goofing/her own students were not goofing because she thought they knew
better.
Analysis
From your ethical argument, provide an analysis of this case from teleological and
deontological perspectives. /5 marks

Teleological
If the teacher is found to be guilty
- Safety around the school would be increased
- Teachers would act more strict and more guidelines would be implemented on
teacher requirements
- More supervision, or a change in supervision guidelines would change during
crosswalks.
- Students may feel more pressure to listen to teachers to avoid injury.
- Teacher may end up being transferred because trust might be lost in the teacher
from students for allowing a unsafe thing to happen.
- Parents would feel a sense of justice

If the teacher is found to be innocent


- School may still decide to implement more strict guidelines to prevent student
injury
- Students will not feel worried about goofing off during school drills possibly.
- More clarity will be added to reasonably foreseeable and teachers can take into
account this.

Deontological

Fidelity Faithfulness, loyalty, honesty, and trustworthiness between teachers,


students, parents and society. Placing the interests of students before your
own interests.

School & Teacher Perspective:


- Teacher switched the class to incorporate time for students to complete their
math assignments. Ensures trust in parents that the teacher is able to complete
school related tasks with their children, especially with report cards coming up
soon.
- School ensured that it complied with the Fire and Safety regulations and are
doing fire drills to establish continued trust in the school to carry out safety
procedures.

Student & Parent Perspective


- Inadequate supervision lead to the harm of the student. Trust with the school has
been lost due to the lack of care and supervision of the child.

Non-Maleficence Protecting Students from Harm

School & Teacher Perspective:


- Constantly supervising and and making sure students are taken care of. They did
to their best ability that students were not being run over by cars, and trying not
to injure themselves or injuring themselves on the way to the muster point.

Student & Parent Perspective


- The student was harmed on activities relating to the school. They were not given
adequate supervision to prevent other students from pushing and shoving and
causing injury.
- The teachers already saw that students were goofing off and then did not do
anything to prevent it from happening other than words.

Benifecence Contributing to the well-being of others. Aiding those in need.

School & Teacher Perspective:


- Teachers quickly responded to the situation by alerting a medical professional to
take care of the broken hand.

Student & Parent Perspective


- No action was taken to prevent the grade 2/3 class from goofing off and then this
resulted in injury
- No supervision or things were done to enforce the no goofing that was stated
earlier.

For your legal argument, support your analysis with reference to relevant legal
frameworks (i.e. Charter, Code of Conduct, the basic conditions of negligence). /8

Negligence,
Standard of Care,
In Loco Parentis
Liability & Supervision
Charter of Rights and Freedoms (7) Everyone has the right to life, liberty and security of
the person and the right not to be deprived thereof except in accordance with the
principles of fundamental justice.
School Act Section 18(1a) A teacher while providing instruction or supervision must
provide instruction completely to students.

***More emphasis should be placed on your legal arguments

Court Decision /2 marks

The teacher would not be held liable for the actions. As they were conducting a fire drill.
In this indicdent, they were securing the safety of all the children. The vice principal was
stopping cars in order for students to be safe from harm from vehicles, while the
teachers were discussing where to stop their children in order to be able to account for
them and make a safe space for them to move around in. A reasonable person would not
be expected to supervise at all times. Accidents happen (pull from Scott (2011) Article)
Case II

Mr. Rhetti teaches science and chemistry in a K-12 school in a small town in
southern Alberta. On a Tuesday morning, Mr. Rhetti had his grade 11 Chemistry 20
students complete a lab on oxidation and reduction reactions. One of the chemicals
used in this lab was copper (II) sulphate, which is a common chemical compound found
in high school labs. It is stored in its crystalline form, which is blue in colour, in 500 mL
glass bottles with screw-on lids. If ingested, this ionic compound can cause vomiting,
headaches and rashes. It can also cause death from shock or renal failure, even in small
quantities.
Before heading to the chemistry lab, Mr. Rhetti went over the expectations he
had for behaviour in the lab and provided instructions for what to do when the
students entered the lab. After his instructions were given, the class proceeded to
the lab. Once the students had on their lab coats and goggles on, Mr. Rhetti went
through the lab procedure, demonstrating the steps they were going to be
completing, and pointed out where the chemicals were located that they would be using.
He told the students that the chemicals had to remain at the front of the room at all
times; the students could not take them back to their lab stations. Mr. Rhetti also went
over the necessary safety precautions for the students and things they needed to be
cautious of in terms of handling and disposing of the chemicals. The students began the
lab and Mr. Rhetti moved around the room answering questions and helping the students
where needed. At one point, the students ran out of two chemical solutions, so Mr.
Rhetti went into the back room to get more solutions. He also had stepped into the
hallway for a few moments to speak with the principal when she had popped in to
see how the lab was going.
The lab went very smoothly and as the students finished and cleaned up their
station, Mr. Rhetti sent them back to the classroom where they were to work on their
data calculations and to complete the lab handout. As the last two groups were cleaning
up their stations, Mr. Rhetti began to lock away the chemicals from the lab. To his
dismay, he noticed that one of the two bottles of copper (II) sulphate was missing. He
double-checked through the chemistry lab to make sure that it was not anywhere in the
lab and asked the last two groups if they had the bottle. They told him they did not.
After a thorough search of the lab, he still could not find the bottle. He called down to
the Lab Technician, Mrs. Lam, and asked her search the lab as well.
Mr. Rhetti returned to his classroom with the last two groups and found his students
working on their labs as he had requested. Mrs. Lam phoned him in his classroom and
told him she could not find the bottle either. Mr. Rhetti reflected back on the lab and
confirmed that he did use the copper (II) sulphate in this lab, had gone over all the safety
information with his class for the lab and the chemicals used in the class, and had
emphasized that all materials had to remain at the front of the lab. Before Mr. Rhetti
could question the class, the bell rang and the students began packing up and
leaving the room. Mr. Rhetti decided to look in the lab once again, talk with Mrs. Lam
again, and then his department head if he could still not locate the bottle.
Unfortunately later that afternoon, two grade 10 students, Janine and Adsila,
became very ill and were rushed to the hospital. Upon investigation, it was determined
that three girls in Mr. Rhettis chemistry class had stolen the copper (II) sulphate from the
lab and placed the crystals into blue slushies and offered them to Janine and Adsila. The
five girls were friends but had a big fight the previous week. The three girls did not
realize how sick Janine and Adsila would get. Janine and Adsila spent 3 weeks in
the hospital for associated stomach and kidney issues; they suffered from severe
vomiting and headaches as a result of consuming an unknown quantity of copper (II)
sulphate. The three girls were ultimately charged with administering a noxious
substance. One month after the incident, Janine and Adsila were back in school.
Janine and Adsilas parents commenced an action suit against the school board
and Mr. Rhetti for the associated injuries their daughters experienced from the copper (II)
sulphate poisoning and the psychological damage from the near death experience they
had. The parents alleged that Mr. Rhetti was negligent in his duty of care and lab
supervision. They argued that Mr. Rhetti and the administration did not do enough
to recover the missing bottle of copper (II) sulphate.

Identification
Who are the individuals/groups involved in the case & what are their perspectives /4

Janine / Adsila & Parents The school board and the teacher failed to safely instruct
students and were unaeble recover the missing bottle of copper sulphate.
3 Girls in Mr. Rhettis Chemistry Class Were unaware of the consequences of poisoning
students. Were unaware of the severity of illness that can come from ingesting these
chemicals.
Mr. Rhetti / School Board Provided proper instruction on what the procedures were to
handling the chemicals. Attempted to recover the bottle of copper (II) sulphate but was
unable to.

What are the relevant legal & ethical issues for this case? /4 marks
Negligence
Nonmalificence
Beneficence
Supervision and Liability
Section 7 of the Charter
Duty of Care
In Loco Parentis

Consideration
Are there any personal biases present? Explain why or why not.
The teacher assumed that because the last two student groups did not see the
chemicals, then it may have been still in the lab. Did not question other students.

Yes, the three girls did not like Janine and Asdila and poisoned them.

Analysis
From your ethical argument, provide an analysis of this case from teleological and
deontological perspectives. /5 marks

Teleological
If the teacher is found to be guilty of negligence
- Stricter rules would be in place for science labs.
- Labs may be less exciting due to the possibility of injury due to the use of
dangerous chemicals.
- Parents would have a sense of justice.
- Damaging to the schools reputation
- Students may lose trust for tehs chool to keep them safe.

If the teacher is found to be innocent


- Then the students may not believe that the rules are adequate enough to keep
them safe from harm.
- Stricter rules may be in place to prevent this from happening again.
- More clear guidelines would be shown for negligence (court rulings)

Deontological

Non-Maleficence Protecting Students from Harm


School & Teacher Perspective:
- The teacher did what they thought they could do to keep the students from harm.
They gave proper instruction on how to deal with the lab and even inside the lab
they provided information on how to use the chemicals.

Student & Parent Perspective


- The girls did not

Benifecence Contributing to the well-being of others. Aiding those in need.

School & Teacher Perspective:


- The school rushed the students to the hospital.
- Looked in the lab several times and reflected if the chemical was actually
missing. Was trying to search for it up until the poisoning.

Student & Parent Perspective


- Did not look hard enough for the chemicals leading to the contribution of harm to
others. Did not do enough to look for the bottle.

Fidelity Faithfulness, loyalty, honesty, and trustworthiness between teachers,


students, parents and society. Placing the interests of students before your
own interests.

School & Teacher Perspective:


- The teacher asked the last few students if they did not see it. The teacher trusted
those students to have not seen it missing.
- Had the lab assistant look as well.

Student & Parent Perspective


- Did not ask the class if they had the missing chemical and therefore contributed
to the harm of the two students. Lost faith and trust in the school and teacher.
- The teacher did not immediately tell the principle or vice-principle, or section
head.

For your legal argument, support your analysis with reference to relevant legal
frameworks (i.e. Charter, Code of Conduct, the basic conditions of negligence). /8
***More emphasis should be placed on your legal arguments

Negligence
Supervision & Liability
Section 7 of the Charter
Duty of Care
In Loco Parentis

Court Decision /2 marks

The teacher would be held responsible. The teacher did not do enough to search for the
bottle and apparently did not give enough information about the hazards of the chemical
if ingested. Because it is on the label of chemicals, it is forseeable that an ingestion of
the chemical could be a hazard and students need to know that what the dangers are in
regards to the possibility of ingesting the chemicals. The teacher also did not alert
school authorities about the missing chemical, only the lab technitian. The teacher also
did not do enough to search for the bottle, as the class was not asked, and only a few
students were asked.

Forseeable in the sense that somebody could ingest it.


Unforseeable in the sense that somebody could steal it and the poison another child.

You might also like