Negligence

by Failure to Provide a Make-up Lesson Anderson, 1984

Hoar v. Board of School Trustees, District 68 (Nanaimo) and Haynes
Lesson Plan
Joel Aspden & Matthew Herman
February 2, 2016
EDPS 410
TIME REQ.: 30 min

Materials: student handouts, slides, internet access, mobile devices for students

Essential
Question

What constitutes negligence in a classroom where the teacher owes a greater

standard of care to students than that established by the principle of in loco
parentis?

Lesson Goal

Students will be able to describe the four considerations that together constitute
negligence, as outlined in the ATA TRRLL (Ch. 3); Students will understand the
precedent established by Myers vs. Peel with respect to teacher negligence.

EDPS 410
Outcomes

1 explain legal frameworks pertinent to the governance of education and the

role of teachers as professionals in Alberta;
2 analyze educational case studies using ethical frameworks;

Preparation

Cue slides; ensure audio works; ensure students have internet access

Bridge-in &
Ask warm-up question to students to assess
Pre-assessment understanding of previous concepts in Negligence.

Students participate in
poll with cellular devices

JOEL

Students are listening.

Time: 2 min (0:02)

Resources:
- cellular devices

Review
MATT
Time: 5 min
Resources: n/a

Ask the students to examine today's case study from

the eyes of a teacher in Alberta, despite the case being
from BC.)
Introduce the plan for the next half hour.
Review the four considerations for determining
negligence, as identiZied by the ATA Teachers' Rights,
Responsibilities, and Legal Liabilities in Chapter 3,
"Negligence"

Students listen,
responding to questions
throughout the
discussion.

Review the degrees of negligence: slight, ordinary, and

gross.
Review the legal schema surrounding liability: tort law,
mixed, and no-fault.
Review the concept of vicarious liability.
Discussion
JOEL

Identify the parties in the case: HOAR, HAYNES &

District 68 Board of Trustees.

Students listen, respond

to questions regarding
the case.

Time: 5 min
Resources: n/a

Describe the facts and timeline of the case:

- Who was injured? In what context?
- What role did the teacher have?
- What information had been provided to the student?
- What other evidence/testimony was included in the
case?

Participatory
Activity

Ask students to vote on who they think is responsible

given the facts of the case.

Students vote on who

they think is responsible

MATT

Discuss the perspectives of both HOAR and HAYNES.

Students discuss their

opinions and vote again.

Time: 5 min
Resources:
- cellular devices

Ask students to vote again given the discussion

Discussion

Reveal the verdict determined by the trial judge.

JOEL
Time: 5 min
Resources: n/a

Describe the central question asked by the judge, and

how BRADBURY's testimony led to the judge's
decision.

*This section should

be adapted for the
timing of the
presentation

Discuss the precedent established by Myers vs. Peel

with respect to teacher negligence, and its relation to
the Court of Appeal's decision to uphold the trial
judge's verdict

Identify the important

details in the precedent
established by Myers vs.
Peel with respect to the
current case

Postassessment

Compare and contrast the current case with several

other cases discussed about Negligence in the course:
- Myers vs. Peel
- Scott
- Fraser vs. Campell
- Moddejonge vs. Huron County B.o.E.
- McKay vs. Board, 1968

Participate in comparing
and contrasting the
current case with
previous cases in the
course.

MATT
Time: *5 min
Resources:
- cellular devices
*This section should
be adapted for the
timing of the
presentation

Summary
JOEL
Time: 3 min
Resources: n/a

Students reZlect on the

decision of the trial
judge.

Ask students to vote one last time on who they think is Students vote on who
responsible in the current case.
they think is responsible
Identify the implications of the HOAR vs. HAYNES case Students listen and
in the context of teaching in Alberta.
reZlect.
Review the important take-aways from the current
case, and from cases studied previously in the course.