Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Jimmy Bejarano, Katie Frankcomb, Ken Laing, Gordon Phillips, and Elizabeth Rowe
Introduction
In this report, we examined the facts relating to the car accident that occurred on
Tuesday, June 9, 2001, just outside the town of Okotoks. In this accident, Amanda Ballard was
charged with Driving Carelessly under section 115 (2)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta.
Ballard’s passenger, Prim Irwin, was thrown from the car and suffered catastrophic injuries as a
result. We have looked at the negligence of two parties: the high school teacher, Lindsay
Waterman, and the high school student who was the driver of the vehicle, Amanda Ballard. It
should be noted that the Okotoks School District also assumes vicarious liability for Lindsay
have also looked at potential defences to negligence, including the voluntary assumption of risk,
Lindsay Waterman
Duty of Care
Lindsay Waterman is a teacher at Trudeau High School in Okotoks and was the
supervising teacher for both Ballard and Irwin. As such, under section 18 of the School Act she
owes students a duty of care (Province of Alberta, 2018). This dictates that Waterman is
expected to stand in place of the parents as guardian during the school day and assume
responsibility for the students as a caring parent would (Donlevy, Chomos & Walker, 2008). We
argue that although Waterman dismissed the students early, at 3:00 instead of at 3:30, she was
still acting as guardian and therefore responsible for the students’ well being.
Standard of Care
As mentioned above, Waterman was standing in loco parentis for all students, which
applies while at school and on off-school excursions (Crook & Truscott, 2007, p.74). In this case,
Waterman did not do what a reasonable and prudent parent would have done, which is to check
the details of the excursion. Waterman’s incorrect assumption that the activity was within town
boundaries directly led to allowing students to travel together outside of town limits. The school
policy states, “no secondary student, irrespective of age, may drive a private vehicle transporting
other students to school-sponsored activities during school hours...except to use local facilities
within the town or village boundaries for activities that are an integral part of instruction.”
Waterman believed that she was following school policy but failed her standard of care by not
confirming with administration that this was accurate. As Keeler states “negligence exists where
the activity or conduct on the part of the teacher creates an unreasonable chance of danger”
(2009, p.26).
Foreseeability
It was reasonably foreseeable that an accident could occur because Waterman failed to confirm
that the excursion was within city limits. Due to this failure to verify the location of the golf
course, it’s foreseeable that an accident could occur given the following factors: the driver was
young and inexperienced and was driving at high rates of speed on country roads.
Causality
Waterman permitted students to drive a private motor vehicle transporting other students
to school-sponsored activities outside of town boundaries. But for the decision to not clarify the
location of the excursion, the accident likely would not have occurred. The speed limits in the
town are much lower than outside of it and rollovers are much more likely at higher speeds and
Amanda Ballard
Duty of Care
As the licensed and registered driver of the motor vehicle, Ballard owed a duty of care to
Irwin as the passenger. She also owes a duty of care to the other drivers on the road.
Standard of Care
Ballard failed to maintain the seatbelt in her motor vehicle and allowed a passenger to sit
in that seat. Her standard of care must be to the level laid out in the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta:
“Any equipment or safety system installed in a vehicle by the manufacturer of the vehicle must
be maintained in good working order and in accordance with the manufacturer’s specifications.”
(2009, p. 82).
Foreseeability
It was reasonably foreseeable that driving recklessly could result in injuries. Also,
operational seatbelt. It is not necessary that the specific catastrophic injuries suffered by Irwin
Causality
Ballard was driving unsafely as evidenced by her charge of Driving Carelessly under
section 115(2)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta. But for this action, the accident, and the
Damages
The plaintiff sustained catastrophic injuries in the accident and was left a
quadriplegic. Pecuniary damages should be awarded as she will require extensive and expensive
ongoing medical care. Future earning potential will also likely be affected as her condition will
limit employment opportunities. Damages for pain and suffering is limited to $300,000 in
Canada (Powerpoint #6, September 27 2018, Slide 31) and, given the extent of her injuries,
Irwin could be awarded the full amount. No punitive damages would apply as the defendant's
actions were not malicious. (Powerpoint #6, September 27 2018, Slide 33)
Defences of Negligence
The defence of, ‘volenti non fit injuria’ (Powerpoint #6, September 27 2018, Slide 18)
could not be argued as while the parents of both Ballard and Irwin did sign a consent form prior
to the accident which said that they could, “attend off-site activities associated with curriculum
activities and that the school and its teachers would not be held liable for accidents where their
children were injured”, they can not sign away the rights of their children and therefore, it would
Illegality
The illegality defence, ‘ex turpi causa non oritur actio” (from a dishonorable cause an
action does not arise) (PP Sept 27, Slide 17), could be raised here because Irwin was not wearing
a seatbelt at the time of the accident. According to section 82(2)(b) of the Alberta Traffic Safety
Act (2009), if the passenger seat has a seat belt assembly it must be worn. Therefore, the injured
party was involved in an illegal action at the time of the accident. Although it is a weak argument
because the illegal action was relatively minor, this could be used to limit the liability of the
defendant.
Irwin did not have a seatbelt on at the time of the rollover according to the accident
reconstruction expert. But for this action, Irwin likely would not have been thrown from the car
and would not have suffered the catastrophic injuries. Irwin admitted that she was privy to a
conversation earlier in the year where the seatbelt was mentioned as malfunctioning and both
parties consented to accept the risk in riding in the passenger seat of the car despite this
knowledge. She could have elected to sit in any of the back seats where the seatbelts were
functioning. Ballard also admitted that on the day of the accident, the seatbelt was extended and
locked such that, “the chest and stomach belt was loose,” further adding to the argument that
both parties assume contributory negligence. In past reviewed Canadian cases, “a reduction of
25% of the claim is appropriate where all of the person’s injuries could have been avoided by
wearing a seat belt” (Harrison, 2017). Because Irwin would have likely still sustained some
injuries from the accident, her not wearing a seatbelt would still contribute up to 20% of the
negligence.
Conclusion
In conclusion, we find that both Ballard and Waterman satisfy all five elements of
negligence and therefore both can be held equally responsible. Waterman failed to act in loco
parentis by not confirming the location of the excursion, thereby not taking the proper care that a
reasonable and prudent parent would. Because of this failure, an inexperienced driver was
allowed to travel at high speeds on a country road. Ballard’s failure to maintain working safety
restraints in her vehicle, as well as her reckless driving, led to catastrophic injuries to her
vehicle’s passenger. By not wearing a seatbelt, Irwin contributed to her own injuries by failing to
would assign responsibility for damages at Waterman - 40%, Ballard - 40%, and Irwin - 20% in
this case.
References
https://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/rollover-101/index.htm
Crook K. & Truscott D. (2007). Ethics and law for teachers. Toronto, ON: Nelson Education Limited
Donlevy J., Chomos J. & Walker K. (2008). Guide to Alberta school law: Retrieved
from https://www.rcmvlaw.com/news/in-loco-parentis-step-parents-unwed-parents-non-
biological-parents-and-child-support/
Donlevy, J. EDUC 525, September 27, 2018, PPT #6, Slides # 17, 18, 31, 33.
Harrison, C. (2017, March 17). Contributory negligence: Failing to wear a seat belt:Retrieved from
http://www.tslawyers.ca/contributory-negligence-no-seat-belt/
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Regs/2009_122.pdf
from http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/acts/s03.pdf