Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Learning Task 1
EDUC 525
University of Calgary
Dr. J. K. Donlevy
The Facts:
This paper analyzes the facts of the “Student Drivers” case. On Tuesday, June 9th, 2001,
a vehicular accident occurred 30 km outside of Okotoks that left a 15-year-old with life-changing
injuries. Upon examination of the facts, we are considering Prim Irwin as the plaintiff who
became a quadriplegic because of the catastrophic road accident. Based on our examination of
the facts, the following are being considered as liable: Lindsay Waterman, the teacher in
supervision at the time of the incident, the school principal, and Amanda Ballard, the registered
owner and driver of the vehicle. Prim Irwin is being held accountable under contributory
negligence. To determine who is liable for the damages suffered by the plaintiff, we will use the
Lindsay Waterman:
Irwin and Ballard were both students participating in a field trip under the supervision of
Waterman. According to Alberta School Act Section 18.1.f, "A teacher while providing
instructions or supervision must maintain order and discipline-under the direction of the
principal- among the students while they are in the school or on the school grounds and while
they are attending or participating in activities sponsored or approved by the board"(p 26).
Furthermore, considering “in Loco Parentis” principle, Waterman should act like a caring
According to Trudeau High School Directive # 1, secondary school students can drive
private vehicles transporting other students to school sponsored activities during school hours
only within the town boundaries. Thus, in compliance with the school’s policy of transportation
in private vehicles, it was Lindsay watermen’s responsibility to make sure that the activity’s site
The student Driver Case 3
(Maribelle Resort Golf Course) is located within the town’ limits before allowing the student to
carpool with other student. In the directive of the school, when driving to and from physical
education activities, students are expected to wear seat belts. Thus, it was the teacher’s duty to
ensure that all the students were wearing seatbelts. In doing so she would have noticed that
Irwin’s seat belt was not working properly or was not functional at all and made an alternative
travel arrangement for her as per school policy. In this case especially the teacher needed to be
super cautious as the students were driving on the highway where the speed limit is 100 Km/hour
Although, Waterman was assured that Ballard had a valid driver’s license, Waterman
vicariously violated her standard of care towards the plaintiff as Waterman did not consider the
Transportation Guidelines for Students which only allows students to drive their personal
Any reasonable prudent parent would be able to foresee that driving on highway at the
speed limit of 100 Km/hour offers greater risks and that “students must be instructed in advance
on all aspects of safety during the field trip, and all foreseeable dangers should be brought to the
students’ attention” (ATA, 2013, p30). But for had Watermen been aware that the activity site is
located outside the town’s boundaries and followed the school transportation guidelines for
students; the accident could have been avoided altogether (Donlevy, n.d.).
School Principal:
Under Alberta School Act, the school principal must provide a “caring and safe
environment” (s 20.a), “direct the management of the school” (s 20.e) and “maintain order and
discipline during the activities approved by the board” (s 20.f). Furthermore, it is duty of teachers
The student Driver Case 4
and administrators to determine the adequate amount of supervision (ATA, 2013, p27). Thus,
The school principal vicariously infringed upon the standard of care she had towards the
plaintiff in the sense as principal did not enforce the School Directive which only allows students
to drive and carpool only within city limits and with their seatbelts worn all the time (Donlevy,
n.d.). As the administrator of the school, the principal ought to know the exact location of the
proposed activity site and would be able to foresee the potential risks associated with driving at
highway before approving the activity. But For the school principal’s inability to implement the
Amanda Ballard:
As the registered owner and driver of the car, Ballard had a duty of care to protect
herself, her passengers, as well as those whom she was sharing the road with. It was also her
statutory responsibility as a licensed driver to not drive carelessly on the road according to the
section 115(1) (a) (b) of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta (2008, p. 131).
Ballard failed to provide an appropriate standard of care to Irwin as her passenger in her
car by not informing her about the faulty seatbelt. According to the Alberta occupant restraint
program, Alberta’s Traffic Safety Act: Vehicle Equipment Regulations Part 5 and the Federal
Motor Vehicle Safety Act, state that “it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that all passengers
under the age of 16 years are properly restrained in the vehicle” (2018, para. 2). However,
Ballard still allowed Irwin to sit in the seat with the faulty seatbelt. Ballard could have told Irwin
to sit in the rear passenger seat; however, she did not. Therefore, Ballard disregarded her
common law duty to protect her passenger when Irwin was riding with her in her vehicle.
The student Driver Case 5
Furthermore, a registered driver with a valid driver’s license should be able to foresee the
dangers associated with not wearing a seatbelt. A reasonable, prudent individual would be aware
of the importance of using a seatbelt in terms of injury prevention and its role in limiting risks
associated with potential road accidents. Thus, Ballard was obligated to ask her passenger to sit
in the back seat of the vehicle instead. But for, Ballard driving the vehicle while knowing that
Irwin was not safely secured, the injuries could have been limited or avoided. Ballard did not
take the initiative to protect her passenger from the risks associated with driving while unsecured
and therefore is negligent. She is found guilty of dangerous driving causing bodily harm under
Prim Irwin:
Irwin is held accountable under contributory negligence for undermining the standard
of care she had towards herself as an individual by making the decision of not wearing a
seatbelt. Irwin is also responsible for her own injury because she was aware of the
malfunctioning seat belt as she overheard Amanda saying, “there is some problem with the belt”
(Donlevy, n.d.). However, she overlooked her duty of care to herself as she did not take on the
responsibility of asking Ballard whether she had repaired the seatbelt or not. A reasonable,
prudent individual would be able to foresee the negative consequences associated with not
wearing a seatbelt. Irwin should have taken a stand for her own safety and sat in the rear seat of
the car where there was a functioning seatbelt. But for, had Irwin sat in the back seat of the car
when she suspected the front seatbelt to be faulty, the injuries could have been prevented
altogether, or at the very least been minimized (Car rollover 101, 2014).
The student Driver Case 6
Volenti non fit injuria also applies to Irwin because she was aware of the
malfunctioning seat belt, and still chose to sit in that seat. Hence, she accepted the risks
associated with not safely securing herself while riding in the vehicle. Therefore, along with the
defendants, Irwin is also liable for both non-pecuniary and pecuniary damages. This would
include medical expenses, loss of future opportunities, and the suffering she has suffered and will
Conclusion:
After analyzing the facts, we have concluded that in addition to the damages of pain and
suffering, Irwin may entitle to the damages of disability and loss of future opportunities of
earnings as the accident has left her quadriplegic. The defendants Lindsay Waterman, the school
principal, and Amanda Ballard under joint liability are 70 % liable for the damages suffered by
the plaintiff because they have clearly accounted for all five elements of negligence. Amanda
Ballard failed to fulfill her common law duty towards her passenger by not informing her about
the faulty seatbelt or suggesting that Irwin sit in the back seat. Lindsay Waterman and the school
principal are deemed negligent towards the plaintiff because of violating the School District
Policy and for their inability to ensure that the vehicle in question was safe. However, it should
be noted that the section 60 (1) b. iv of the School Act protects the principal and the teacher from
individual liability in the event of a lawsuit (p.59). Finally, the plaintiff, Prim Irwin did not take
responsibility for her own safety causing her to be contributorily negligent. Thus, she is 30%
References
http://albertaseatbelts.ca/resources-legislation/the-law/
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
Car rollover 101: How rollovers happen and what you can do to avoid one. (April, 2014).
Donlevy, J. (n.d.) Student Drivers [Class handout]. Calgary: Werklund School of Education.
Traffic Safety Act (2018). Province of Alberta, Alberta Queen’s Printer. Retrieved from
http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/t06.pdf