Running head: STUDENT DRIVERS ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY

Student Drivers Analysis of Liability

Breanna Hartman, Annya Hosseini, Lindsay Kawohl, Alana Parsons

University of Calgary

EDUC 525 – S02

Dennis Parsons

October 17, 2017

STUDENT DRIVERS ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY 1

The Facts of the Case

On Tuesday June 9, 2017, 16-year-old driver Sylvia Ballard and 17-year-old passenger

Prim Jasmin were driving back to Peter Lougheed High School after an off-site physical

education activity at the Countryside Resort Golf Course outside of town limits. Ballard was

driving her vehicle at approximately 80 km/hour on Highway 30 outside of Okatoks. As Ballard

was driving up a hill, she attempted to swerve around a stationary vehicle at an uncontrolled

intersection. During this maneuver her vehicle flipped and rolled over. The passenger, Prim

Jasmin, was thrown from the vehicle and became a quadriplegic as a result of the accident.

Lindsay Waterman was the supervising teacher for the physical education activity (EDUC 525,

2017).

For the purposes of analyzing this case, the five elements of negligence (D. Parsons,

personal communication [lecture], October 3, 2017) will be applied to Ballard, Jasmin,

Waterman, Peter Lougheed High School and the Okatok’s School District on an individual basis

to determine liability for Jasmin’s injuries. With regards to the element of damages, it has been

established in the same manner for all parties. Therefore, we will address this element at the

outset of this analysis. Jasmin, the passenger of Ballard’s vehicle, became a quadriplegic as a

result of the car accident. Jasmin suffered, and will continue to suffer, from major damages. The

damages include but are not limited to: pain, suffering, loss in quality of life, prospective wage

loss, and ongoing medical care and costs.

Sylvia Ballard

As a registered vehicle owner, Ballard is bound by the Traffic Safety Act (2017) and has a

responsibility to ensure seat belts in her vehicle are in working condition and ensure her

passengers are wearing a seat belt (p. 69). Additionally, the school Transportation Guidelines for
STUDENT DRIVERS ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY 2

Students - PHYS ED 20/30 Driving Policy states students are “expected to drive in an appropriate

and safe manner, including wearing seatbelts” (EDUC 525, 2017, p. 2). Ballard failed to provide

standard of care because she did not enforce Jasmin’s use of the seat belt and proceeded to drive

regardless of this infraction. As a registered driver, it is reasonable to assume a possibility of an

accident occurring when operating a vehicle. Ballard should have anticipated Jasmin’s injury

regardless of whether or not she was wearing a seatbelt. Regardless of purposeful intent, Ballard

was charged with driving carelessly, which implicates that Jasmin’s injury may have been

preventable if Ballard had exercised caution while driving.

Prim Jasmin

According to the Transportation Guidelines for Students - PHYS ED 20/30 Driving

Policy, Jasmin had a duty of care to wear a seatbelt when going to and from Physical Education

activities (EDUC 525, 2017, p. 2). Therefore, Jasmin failed to uphold her standard of care

because she should have sat in a seat with a functional seat belt. Because Jasmin was not wearing

a seatbelt in the vehicle, it is reasonably foreseeable an accident would result in severe injuries.

Jasmin demonstrated contributory negligence by consciously choosing not to sit in a seat with an

operating seatbelt. This led to Jasmin being thrown from the vehicle in the event of an accident.

While the act of not wearing a seatbelt did not cause the accident, the extent of the injury

sustained was caused from Jasmin’s inactions.

Lindsay Waterman - Teacher

As an Alberta certified teacher, Waterman is bound by the School Act (2017) to protect

her students. The Transportation Guidelines for Students - PHYS ED 20/30 Driving Policy states

students are not allowed to drive peers in their vehicle during school hours outside of city limits

(EDUC 525, 2017, p. 2). Waterman should have been aware the golf course was outside of the
STUDENT DRIVERS ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY 3

town limits. Likewise, she should have enforced the school policy, so she failed to uphold the

standard of care to her students. Waterman should have anticipated the relevance of the school’s

transportation guidelines because it is reasonably foreseeable an accident could occur while

driving. Additionally, Waterman dismissed her students early, creating ambiguity in the liability

of herself and the school. By not enforcing the school policy, Waterman’s inactions created the

opportunity for the accident to occur.

Peter Lougheed High School

Peter Lougheed High School has a duty of care to ensure the safety and protection of

their students by enforcing the School Act and the Okatok’s School District policies, which all

students and teachers must abide by. The school attended to the standard of care by providing the

students with the Transportation Guidelines for Students as the PHYS ED 20/30 Driving Policy

on the first day of PHYS ED 20/30 (EDUC 525, 2017, p. 2), and reiterating the policy

throughout the year. The school should have ensured Waterman was aware of how these policies

would apply when supervising off-site activities such as this one. There is reasonable

foreseeability vehicular accidents could occur when students are driving to and from school

activities, and the school responded to this by having policies in place to limit when students can

drive. Despite the restriction of only driving within the city limits, the school could have

foreseen accidents occurring within the city limits and amended the district policy to be stricter,

as did the other two high schools in the district. This would have eliminated the ambiguity of

whether the golf course was within or without the city limits, and thus prevented the possibility

of the accident.
STUDENT DRIVERS ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY 4

Okatok’s School District

As per the School Act (2017), the Okatok’s School District has a duty of care to provide a

safe learning environment for students by creating and enforcing policies and regulations that

attend to student safety. The Okatok’s School District foresaw the possibility of vehicular

accidents occurring with students driving to and from school activities out of town. The School

District had a standard of care to create stricter transportation policies to prohibit student driving

for any school activities during school hours. If the school district had ensured the school

effectively implemented their policies and if the School District had implemented stricter student

transportation policies in the first place, the possibility of the accident occurring could have been

eliminated.

Liability

In our opinion, after a thorough analysis, we find the parties of Sylvia Ballard, Prim

Jasmin, Peter Lougheed School, and Okatok’s School District to be contributorily liable for the

injuries to Jasmin. Ballard is found liable for causing the accident that led to Jasmin’s injuries.

Jasmin is found liable for creating the circumstances that led to the extent of her injuries during

the accident. As a result of vicarious liability, we find Waterman’s actions or inactions are the

responsibility of the school, and also the school district. We find the specifications of the

district’s policy on student transportation are insufficient to remove liability in this particular

situation, and the school’s enforcement of the relevant policies are also insufficient to remove

liability. The apportionment of liability is as follows: Ballard - 25%, Jasmin - 15%, and Peter

Lougheed School and Okatok’s School District - 60%.

A very strong submission! Your group’s analysis of the case correctly takes into account

many aspects of the case, and you make good use of the elements of negligence to support your
STUDENT DRIVERS ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY 5

analysis. You have made a strong case in demonstrating negligence for the Board, Waterman,

Ballard and Jasmin. The aspect of the case I would focus you on even more intently is the

Transportation Guidelines for students. The field trip is a school sponsored event and the Principal

did not exercise due diligence. He/She approved the field trip and the transportation plan against

policy. Likewise, Waterman, as the supervising teacher (and as you stated), should have known

the event was outside of the town. Therefore, no student should have been driving another student.

The school, and Waterman as the Supervising Teacher, simply needed to adhere to policy and not

have students driving students to this out of town field trip. The principal and Waterman are

employees of the Board. As such, the Board is vicariously liable and should be apportioned much

of the blame.

A few more references to support your analysis would have given additional strength to

your analysis.

Solid work! ….A

STUDENT DRIVERS ANALYSIS OF LIABILITY 6

References

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

Calgary D2L site: https://www.d2l.ucalgary.ca

Province of Alberta. (2017). School Act. Retrieved 10 16, 2017, from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/s03.pdf

Province of Alberta. (2017). Traffic Safety Act. Retrieved 10 16, 2017, from

http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf