Running Head: Educ.

525 LT1 1

Learning Task 1

EDUC 525 L02 - (Fall 2017) - Ethics and Law in Education

Garett Cartier, Lisa Cartier, Marlene Copithorne, Shawn Wylie

University of Calgary
Educ. 525 LT1 2

Learning Task 1 – Fact Pattern 1: Negligence

In our opinion, the liability for the injuries would be shared amongst the following

parties: Prim Jasmin (Jasmin), the teacher (Waterman), the Okatoks School Board, and Sylvia

Ballard (Ballard) (16-year-old Minor (law)). As was found in B. v. Calgary Board of Education,

(1993) CanLII (ABQB 7301) liability for negligence can be shared between multiple parties

when ‘but for’ situations arise and a reasonable standard of care is not met by all parties

involved. As discussed in class, this complies with the purpose of the Tortfeasors Act, RSA

2000, c T-5 (Section 3), which essentially states that there may be multiple parties, or

“tortfeasors”, who act negligently and contribute to a single injury. As such, more than one

person can be held liable for different amounts of contribution to the damages ultimately

awarded by the court.

The school board is obligated to ensure the safety of its students while they are

participating in school activities. The accident may not have happened ‘but for’ the school policy

permitting students to drive personal vehicles to and from off-site school activities. By

permitting the students to drive and attend the Countryside Resort Golf Course without providing

secure and safe transportation back to the school, the school was negligent and breached their

duty of care in failing to provide school sanctioned transportation.

The teacher, Waterman, was also negligent as she knew or ought to have known that the

location of the field trip was outside the city limits. Waterman, in line with the obligations set

forth in Section 18 of the School Act, RSA 2000, c S3, and as we have discussed in class, must

exercise caution in accordance with “loco parentis” (The Province of Alberta, 2017) that exceeds

the expectations of the minimum duty of care. Waterman should have exercised diligence and

done research to ensure that the field trip location was within the city limits and allowed for
Educ. 525 LT1 3

students to drive one another. Additionally, Waterman as a teacher owed the students a duty of

care while on school time. Since she dismissed them early, the students were still her

responsibility and she should have exercised reasonable caution in letting them go. Watermen

breached her duty of care to the students by organizing a school activity outside the city limits,

and permitting them to drive independently.

Ballard is negligent even though she was driving under the speed limit of 80 km/hr. Her

negligence arises from permitting Jasmin to ride in the passenger seat of her vehicle even though

she knew it lacked a functioning seatbelt. Ballard had a duty to ensure that she provided a

functioning seatbelt to Jasmin, and her failure to do so was a breach of her duty of care to

Jasmin, and a direct cause of Jasmin’s injury. As Ballard is a minor, the liability from Ballard’s

negligence would flow to her parents through the concept of vicarious liability. As is the case,

Ballard’s parents are vicariously liable for failing to provide their daughter with a safely

functioning vehicle.

Jasmin is contributorily negligent to her injuries, due to her failure to act prudently and wear a

seatbelt. As discussed in Educ. 525, Parsons (2017) the illegality of Jasmin not wearing a seatbelt

holds her accountable as per ‘Volenti non fit iniuria’, which states “no injury is done to one who

consents. The defence applies both to intentional and accidental harms”. Jasmin knew that the

seat belt was not functioning and knowingly got into a vehicle that was not safe. As a result,

Jasmine directly contributed to her own injuries, and would accordingly be deemed to have

contributed to them.

Discussion

Due to Jasmin being a minor, her parents would begin with a civil claim against Ballard,

Waterman, the School Board, and the truck driver. The defendants would in turn plead that
Educ. 525 LT1 4

Jasmin was contributorily negligent towards her own injury, as discussed in class and pursuant to

the Contributory Negligence Act, RSA 2000 c C-27. Although the participating parties would

still likely be found liable, they would attempt to reduce their individual exposure to liability by

arguing that they met the standard of care required of them.

As Ballard is under the age of 18 she is considered a minor at law, and therefore her

parents would be vicariously liable for her negligent actions. Ballard’s parents would in turn be

sued by Jasmin's parents. There is a significant likelihood that Ballard would be found liable in

negligence due to permitting a passenger to ride in the vehicle with a defective seatbelt. Further,

in failing to be aware of her surroundings and avoid a collision, she caused the rollover and

Jasmine’s injuries.

Waterman was acting in the course of her employment with the school board when she

acted negligently by permitting students to drive independently from a school activity located

outside city limits. As a result, the school board would be vicariously liable for her actions, as the

school board is ultimately responsible for the actions of their employees. Waterman would likely

not be found individually liable for Jasmine’s injuries as she was negligent during normal school

hours and was acting within the course of her employment at the time.

The truck driver would not be found criminally responsible, as the driver did not breach

any traffic laws. However, criminal responsibility and civil liability are different things. As such,

Ballard could still sue the truck driver in a civil action, using the Tort of Negligence. The driver

arguably owed Ballard a duty of care, which Ballard could argue was breached by the driver’s

negligent actions in stopping at the intersection unsafely, and remaining at the intersection for an

unreasonable length of time. However, Ballard’s actions could have directly contributed to the
Educ. 525 LT1 5

driver’s negligence or liability, as she should have been aware of her surroundings and

proceeded towards the intersection safely.

Our opinion is that given the multiple parties associated with the civil claim, the plaintiff

would sue all parties involved on the basis of joint and several liability, which was described as

follows:

When two or more parties are jointly and severally liable for a tortious act, each party is

independently liable for the full extent of the injuries stemming from the tortious act.

Thus, if a plaintiff wins a money judgment against the parties collectively, the plaintiff

may collect the full value of the judgment from any one of them. (Cornell Law School,

n.d., para. 1)

As such, we feel the Jasmin family would seek to obtain full monetary damages from whichever

party appeared to have the greatest financial resources available.

Educ. 525 LT1 6

References

Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, (1993). CanLII (ABQB 7301).

Retrieved From https://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/1993/1993canlii7301

/1993canlii7301.html

Cornell Law School. (n.d.). Joint and several liability. Legal information institute. Retrieved on

October 15, 2017, from https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/joint_and_several_liability

Parsons, D. (2017, Oct 10). The Elements of Negligence. [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from

University of Calgary D2L site: https://d2l.ucalgary.ca

Province of Alberta. (2017). The School Act: Revised Statutes of Alberta 2000 Chapter S-3

Retrieved from Alberta Queen's Printer http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/s03.pdf