Running Head: LEARNING TASK 1 – STUDENT DRIVERS

Learning Task 1 – Student Drivers

Brennan Gill, Shelby Holt, Rebecca Rainville, Alicia Sully, Morgan Warkentin

University of Calgary
LEARNING TASK 1 – STUDENT DRIVERS 2

In our opinion, liability for Jasmin's injuries is shared between the Okotoks School

District (OSD) (vicariously through Waterman) and Ballard. We have not assigned contributory

negligence to Jasmin, as evidence around whether or not Jasmin was wearing her seatbelt is

inconclusive. We accept the evidence that she regularly wore a seatbelt when in a vehicle, and

thus that she was likely wearing the inoperative seatbelt on the day of the accident. Secondly, her

only knowledge about the inoperable seatbelt was from a conversation she had been "privy to"

earlier in the year, where "Ballard stated that there was a problem with the passenger side

seatbelt, although no specifics were given" (EDUC525, 2017, p.1). It is reasonable for her to

have assumed that the seatbelt had been fixed or for her to have forgotten about the conversation,

especially since the seatbelt "appeared to be functioning" (2017, p.1) on the day of the accident.

We find the OSD partially liable for Jasmin’s injuries under the tort of negligence for

allowing students to drive themselves to and from the Countryside Resort Golf Course (Golf

Course) for a school-sanctioned event. Peter Lougheed High School's policy states that "[n]o

secondary school 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" (EDUC525, 2017, p.2). Though her

breach of school policy was unintentional, the tort of negligence does not require that the

negligence be intentional. Rather, the application of the tort is based on the outcome of the

negligent action/inaction (Parsons, 2017), which in this case was the car accident. Furthermore,

the teacher-student relationship requires a duty of care of teachers and school boards to ensure

the safety of students and to take reasonable steps to minimize the risk of injury (McKay &

Flood, 2001, p.373-374). There was reasonable foreseeability that allowing students to drive at

highway speeds on rural roads would present an increased risk for accidents, which the school
LEARNING TASK 1 – STUDENT DRIVERS 3

acknowledged by prohibiting students from driving outside town limits. Additionally, Consumer

Reports warns that “[a]lmost three-quarters of fatal rollovers occur in rural areas on roads where

the speed limit is 55 mph or more" (2012, n.p.). But for Waterman's inaction, considering the

balance of probabilities, Ballard and Jasmin would not have been involved in the accident that

led to Jasmin's injuries, as they would not have been allowed to drive to or from the Golf Course

in Ballard's vehicle. Therefore, Waterman, and in turn the OSD, did not meet the required

standard of care.

With respect to vicarious liability, "[s]chool boards are expected to take a leadership role

in establishing risk management policies and practices, and of ensuring they are communicated

to, taught to, and practiced by all members of the school community" (McKay & Flood, 2001,

p.390). It is evident that since there were policies in place regarding the transportation of

students to school-sponsored events, the OSD was aware of the increased risk and potential

liability concern of students driving themselves, and thus was responsible for ensuring that

employees adhere to the policies. As Waterman's employer, the OSD is vicariously responsible

for her negligence in failing to confirm the location of the Golf Course.

We find Ballard was also negligent as the registered owner and driver of the vehicle

involved in the accident that led to Jasmin's injuries because "[a] driver of a motor vehicle owes

a duty of care to his [or her] passengers to take reasonable steps to prevent foreseeable injuries"

(Galaske v. O'Donnell, 1994). Ballard was aware of the inoperative seatbelt, as evidenced by the

fact that "Ballard’s parents were aware of the inoperative seatbelt, had made an appointment to

have it repaired, and told Ballard to not let anyone ride in the front passenger side seat until the

seatbelt was repaired" (EDUC525, 2017, p.2). We find that duty of care at the time of the

accident rested on Ballard as the driver, which required her to inform her passenger about the
LEARNING TASK 1 – STUDENT DRIVERS 4

inoperative seatbelt and ask her to sit where a working seatbelt was available. McKay and Flood

(2001) note that "[a] central concept of negligence law is that a 'reasonable person' should be

able to predict when his or her actions might create risks that could result in harm to others"

(p.373). As a licensed driver, it is reasonable that Ballard should predict that not informing her

passenger of an inoperative seatbelt could result in harm to that passenger in the event of an

accident. Additionally, as Ballard was charged and pleaded guilty to "driving carelessly under

section 115(1)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta" (EDUC525, 2017, p.1), and as evidenced

by the seriousness of the accident, we conclude that Ballard was likely driving dangerously at the

time of the accident. This fact, in addition to her negligence by not ensuring that Jasmin was

sitting in a seat with a properly operating seatbelt, proves that Ballard was acting contrary to the

OSD's expected standard of care for student drivers, which states that "[w]hen driving to and

from Physical Education activities, students are expected to drive in an appropriate and safe

manner, including wearing seatbelts" (EDUC525, 2017, p.2). Furthermore, Section 82(6) of the

Traffic Safety Act states that "[a] person shall not drive or operate a motor vehicle […] if the seat

belt assembly has been removed, rendered partly or wholly inoperative or modified so as to

reduce its effectiveness" (2000, s. 82(6)). Not only was Ballard acting contrary to the OSD's

expectations when she drove recklessly and failed to ensure that Jasmin was wearing a properly-

operating seatbelt, but she also defied Alberta Law.

We reference the case of Myers v. Peel County Board of Education (1981) where the

student (Myers) engaged in unsanctioned risky behavior that resulted in personal injury while

under the care of his teacher. Jowett, Myers' teacher, was found negligent through not having

provided an adequate standard of care. Myers was found 20% liable and the Peel County Board

of Education (through vicarious liability from Jowett) was found 80% liable. In the "Student
LEARNING TASK 1 – STUDENT DRIVERS 5

Drivers" case, Ballard, like Myers, chooses to engage in risky behavior without the teacher's

knowledge. However, we find Ballard's actions to be more irresponsible than Myers', as Ballard

not only violated her standard of care to Jasmin, but also broke the law in doing so.

We also reference the case of Hoar v. Nanaimo School District 68 and Haynes (1984). In

this case, the teacher (Haynes) is found negligent through having failed to ensure that the student

(Hoar) had the necessary skills to work a jointer. While Hoar had the responsibility of following

up on missed class material so he could ensure he was operating the jointer in a safe manner,

Haynes failed to prevent Hoar from using the jointer when he knew that Hoar had not followed

up as expected. Both parties were found equally responsible for the resulting injuries. In the case

of "Student Drivers," we find Waterman to have been negligent in her standard of care in not

ensuring that the Golf Course was within city limits; however, we also find Ballard negligent in

her standard of care to ensure that Jasmin was wearing a functioning seatbelt, and in her

responsibility to drive in an "appropriate and safe manner" (EDUC525, 2017, p.2).

Based on the facts of the case, we determine that the apportionment of responsibility in

"Student Drivers" lies somewhere between the above two cases. We conclude that

responsibilities for damages should be split 60% for the OSD (vicariously through Waterman),

and 40% for Ballard.

LEARNING TASK 1 – STUDENT DRIVERS 6

References

Consumer Reports. (2012). Car rollover 101: How rollovers happen and what you can do to

avoid one. Retrieved from https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/rollover-

101/index.htm

EDUC 525. (2017). Student driver case [Learning task handout]. Retrieved from

https://www.d2l.ucalgary.ca

Galaske v. O'Donnell, [1994], CanLII 128 (SCC).

Hoar v. Nanaimo School District 68, [1984] CarswellBC 756 (BCCA).

McKay, A.W. & Flood, T.L. (2001). Negligence principles in the school context: New

challenges for the "careful parent." Education and Law Journal, 10, 371-392. Retrieved

from https://ssrn.com/abstract=2991607

Myers v. Peel County Board of Education, [1981], CanLII 27 (SCC).

Parsons, D. (2017, October 3). Class #6 [Lecture notes]. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2682599/View?ou=193826

Traffic Safety Act, R.S.A. 2000, c. T-6, s. 82(6).