EDUC525: Ethics and the Law

Faulty Policy Leads to Unfortunate Event

Jessica Bryant

Lace Dupont

Kelly Eddy

Marsha Larson

Natasha Van Driesten

University of Calgary

July 16. 2018

FAULTY POLICY LEADS TO UNFORTUNATE EVENT 2

Faulty Policy Leads to Unfortunate Event

For the purpose of this analysis we find the following parties liable for the accident: the

School Division and Trudeau High School, Lindsay Waterman, and partially Amanda Ballard.

There is also a degree of contributory negligence which falls on Prim Irwin.

The School Division and Trudeau High School

The School Division and Trudeau High School are liable because their Transportation

Policy for field trips is flawed. Trudeau High school was following Division Policy which

states,

“no secondary school student, irrespective of age, may drive a private vehicle

transporting other students to school-sponsored activities during school hours or as

school representatives, except (emphasis added) to use local facilities within the town

or village boundaries for activities that are an integral part of instruction” (Donlevy,

2018)

Trudeau High School is one of three high schools within the Okotoks School District and the

only that permits any type of student-student transportation. Therefore, we believe that this

policy is flawed as the two comparable high schools within the area prohibit students

transporting other students in personal vehicles for school sponsored events. Trudeau High

School has a duty of care to provide students with a safe environment. This policy does not

provide an appropriate standard of care; therefore, the risk of a serious accident is foreseeable.
FAULTY POLICY LEADS TO UNFORTUNATE EVENT 3

‘But for’ flawed division policy, this accident would not have occurred, and Prim Irwin would

not have suffered damages resulting in quadriplegia.

Waterman

When comparing the facts against the elements of negligence, we believe Waterman to

be negligent as well. Waterman had duty of care to all her students because this was a school

sponsored activity. Waterman dismissed the student early following a common school practice,

however duty of care is sustained regardless of dismissal time. Waterman was following the

flawed board policy and wrongly assumed that the golf course was within town limits, thereby

falsely permitting students to transport each other. We also question Waterman’s standard of

care for two reasons. First, she failed to confirm the location of the golf course permitting

Ballard to transport Irwin, which led to the accident. Failure to adhere to the flawed school

policy placed Ballard and Irwin in an unsafe situation which had them driving on a country

highway at an increased speed limit making the risk of accident foreseeable. Second, Waterman

visually inspected Ballard’s vehicle but failed to check the functionality of all seat belts, or

verbally remind students to wear their seatbelt on the return trip. Standing in Loco Parentis,

Waterman did not visually confirm that either of the girls were wearing their seat belts prior to

their departure. However, we question whether or not a reasonable and prudent parent would

check the use and functionality of their child’s seat belt consistently either. Our group consensus

is that a reasonable and prudent parent would not check the use and functionality of their child’s

seat belt every time, however, reasonable and prudent parents would verbally remind their

children to ‘remember to buckle up’ often. According to the Alberta Teachers Association

(2013) which outlines teacher liability, when travelling for a field trip it is the teacher’s
FAULTY POLICY LEADS TO UNFORTUNATE EVENT 4

responsibility to ensure all school policies are being met, including the liability insurance of any

vehicle and driver transporting students. As a result of the accident, damages were incurred by

Irwin who is now a quadriplegic.

In the case of Waterman, confirming causality was more complicated. Ultimately it is

the teacher's responsibility according to section 45 (8) of the school act to ensure a safe

environment for students. Waterman made a mistake by assuming that the golf course was

within town limits, but she believed that she was following board policy. Furthermore, this field

trip to the golf course was not integral to the instruction of her Physical Education class. The

curriculum does not state that the subject of golf needs to be covered. ‘But for’ Waterman

visually ensuring that every student was wearing a functioning seat belt, the injury may not

have occurred to the same degree. However, Ballard and Irwin are not completely free of blame

in this unfortunate situation as there is a question of Ballard’s negligence and Irwin’s

contributory negligence.

Ballard

Ballard is negligent because she is the registered owner of the vehicle and she was

driving. She had a duty of care to keep Irwin safe while transporting her back to school. She

also failed in her standard of care when she neglected to tell Irwin about the broken seat belt, or

failed to ask her to sit in another seat with a functioning seat belt. Therefore, Irwin’s injury is

foreseeable because she was riding in a vehicle without a functioning seatbelt. ‘But for’ Ballard

ensuring that Irwin was safely buckled into the car, the injury may not have occurred. Irwin

would not have suffered the damages which resulted in her injury had Ballard met her standard

of care towards her passenger.

FAULTY POLICY LEADS TO UNFORTUNATE EVENT 5

It was under Waterman’s direction that students drove each other in their personal

vehicles to the golf course as per the flawed school policy, that Irwin entered Ballard’s vehicle.

Therefore, we question the amount of blame that can be placed on a sixteen-year-old student

under the direct supervision of a teacher. This indicates that despite Ballard’s neglect, there is

also contributory negligence on Irwin’s part.

Irwin

Irwin suffered the damages of this accident. Her parents signed a consent form which

stated that the school would not be held liable for any accidents, however, due to volenti non fit

injuria, Irwin’s parents cannot sign away her (a minor’s) right to sue. On the other hand, Irwin is

old enough to know that she should have been wearing a seat belt to prevent personal injury as a

result of a potential automobile accident. Because Irwin herself is sixteen she has a duty of care

to herself to ensure that she is properly wearing her seat belt. If Irwin was fifteen and Ballard

sixteen, Ballard would have had the responsibility to ensure all vehicle occupants under the age

of sixteen were belted into the vehicle as Alberta Law states:

“In Alberta, the law requires all occupants traveling in a vehicle to wear a seat belt,

and it is the driver’s responsibility to ensure that all passengers under the age of 16

years are properly restrained in the vehicle. If passengers are not properly restrained,

the driver may receive a seat belt fine” (http://albertaseatbelts.ca/resources-

legislation/the-law/ )

Contributory negligence is a factor when considering how Irwin's personal actions

contributed to her injury. Irwin had reason to believe that the passenger side seat belt of

Ballard’s vehicle was broken due to a previous conversation that she heard at school, yet still
FAULTY POLICY LEADS TO UNFORTUNATE EVENT 6

choose to sit in the seat with the faulty seat belt. Furthermore, Ballard claimed that in the past

Irwin frequently rode in her vehicles without wearing a seat belt until reminded. In contrast,

Irwin claims that she always wore a seat belt when traveling in vehicles and this behaviour was

confirmed by family and friends. In addition to Ballard’s claims regarding Irwin’s seat belt use,

the accident reconstruction expert found no evidence that the seat belt was used (Donlevy,

2018). Irwin was also the individual who opened the sunroof from which she was later thrown

from during the roll-over accident. Considering these facts, there may be a strong case for

contributory negligence on Irwin’s part.

Conclusion

As a group we came to the conclusion that the flawed School Board Policy is ultimately

to blame for this accident. We feel that Waterman’s and Ballard’s actions as well as Irwin’s

contributory negligence don’t really matter in this case, because of the flawed School Board

Policy. Therefore, the School District and the Trudeau High School should be held liable and

found negligent. Waterman’s assumption of the golf course location may have been a mistake,

however, given the policy in place at the time permitting students to transport other student

within town limits was a flawed policy. Trudeau High School’s division policy on student

transportation was in contrast to the policies held by other schools in the district which

prohibited student to transport each other.

FAULTY POLICY LEADS TO UNFORTUNATE EVENT 7

Works Cited:

"AORP Site | The Law". Albertaseatbelts.Ca, 2018, http://albertaseatbelts.ca/resources-

legislation/the-law/. Accessed 16 July 2018.

Donlevy, J.K. (2018). An Unfortunate Event.

Qp.Alberta.Ca, 2018, http://www.qp.alberta.ca/documents/Acts/s03.pdf. Accessed 16 July 2018.