Running Header: EDUC 525- ETHICS AND LAW IN EDUCATION- LEARNING TASK #1

EDUC 525- Ethics and Law In Education- Learning Task #1

October 17, 2017

Kelsey Gerwing, Sarah Dilling, Emily Rozitis, Aneet Mundae, Joshua Lecoupe

Option 1- Student Drivers

EDUC 525- Ethics and Law in Education- Learning Task #1

 EDUC 525- Ethics and Law in Education- Learning Task #1
2

Introduction

Based on the evidence at hand, we believe the teacher, Lindsay Waterman (Waterman),

student Sylvia Ballard (Ballard), and student Prim Jasmin (Jasmin) should all be held jointly

liable for the injuries sustained by Jasmin. But for the occurrence of negligence by all three

parties involved, the accident would not have occurred.

Waterman

Through analyzing the five elements of negligence, (EDUC 525, Oct. 5, 2017,

powerpoint 7, slide 11) we found evidence that Waterman was in fact negligent. Considering that

the event which preceded the accident was sanctioned by the school, the duty of care falls upon

the teacher in charge during that time (EDUC 525, Oct. 3, 2017, powerpoint 6, slide 24). As part

of the Transportation Guidelines for Students – Phys. Ed. 20/30 Driving Policy, students were

told that “physical education instructor(s) will provide transportation for any students who are

not able to get to the facility” (Learning Task 1, Option 1, 2017). We believe that Waterman was

negligent in failing to provide safe and alternative transportation for students from the school

event. In referencing similar acts of teacher negligence found in Bain v. Calgary Board of

Education (1993) and Hoar v. Nanaimo School District 68 (1984), we found Waterman to be

negligent in providing and meeting a proper standard of care towards her students, within the

standards set by the class and school policies (EDUC 525, Oct. 3, 2017, powerpoint 6, slide 24).

The evidence shown provides us with the information to view this as an unintentional tort of

negligence, because Waterman, the tortfeaser, did not intend on the outcome of an accident,

which could have been avoided by providing mandatory, school-provided transportation (EDUC

525, Oct. 3, 2017, powerpoint 6, slide 12).

2
 EDUC 525- Ethics and Law in Education- Learning Task #1
3

According to the Transportation Guidelines for Students Policy which was addressed on

the first day of class and reinforced throughout the year, and in accordance with the School

District Administrative Policy Transportation Guidelines for Students, no student may, in their

own vehicle, drive another student to a school sponsored activity located outside of the town

boundaries (Learning Task 1, Option 1, 2017). In referencing similar teacher negligence found in

Hoar v. Nanaimo School District 68 (1984), this accident occurred within the reasonable

foreseeability of Waterman. As such, Waterman neglected to uphold her duty of care to ensure

that the school event took place within town boundaries. According to common law, teachers are

required to act upon a particular standard of care to meet their duty of care. Teachers must act in

the same sense that a prudent parent would, in protecting their students from harm that is

reasonably foreseeable (EDUC 525, Oct. 5, 2017, powerpoint 7, slide 32). Additionally, a

teacher’s standard of care is objective and must be continually enforced through school events

which take place during regular educational hours. Further, the concept of loco parentis states

that when children are under the care of an adult other than their own parent, whomever that

adult may be, must continually act in the best interest of that child (EDUC 525, Oct. 3, 2017,

powerpoint 6, slide 24).

Waterman’s negligence demonstrated on the day of the accident renders her partly

responsible for the injuries sustained by Jasmin. Additionally, if Waterman had been acting

sensibly under the concept of loco parentis, she would have been aware of each students’ mode

of transportation prior to leaving for the event. Hence, she would have known that Jasmin was

planning to drive with Ballard, and would have had time to arrange alternative transportation.

Ballard

3
 EDUC 525- Ethics and Law in Education- Learning Task #1
4

Ballard was operating a personally owned vehicle, and was transporting her passenger,

Jasmin, from an off-site school activity located at the Countryside Resort Golf Course. This

particular location happened to be outside of town boundaries. According to the School District

Administrative Policy Transportation Guidelines for Students, students are prohibited from

driving fellow students to and from activities located outside of regular town boundaries. The

policy states that “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 to use local facilities within the town or village boundaries for activities,

which are an integral part of instruction” (Learning Task 1, Option 1, 2017). Therefore, we

believe that Ballard was negligent in violating her school's’ transportation policy, as she did in

fact transport Jasmin from an activity located outside of town boundaries.

Additionally, Ballard knew that her passenger seatbelt was faulty prior to offering Jasmin

a ride. Further, Ballard as well as her parents were aware that the passenger seatbelt needed to be

repaired before she could transport a passenger. Because of this, we believe that Ballard is found

to be guilty of contributory negligence for the injuries sustained by Jasmin (EDUC 525, Oct. 12,

2017, powerpoint 9, slides 8-10).

Jasmin

It was acknowledged by both Jasmin and Ballard that the passenger seatbelt inside the

vehicle was faulty. It was also known by both students and staff of the school, that the

transportation guidelines require students to drive safely and wear seatbelts at all times.

Additionally, it was stated that Jasmin had opened the sunroof on the drive back to the student's’

4
 EDUC 525- Ethics and Law in Education- Learning Task #1
5

school. Consumer Reports (2013) claim that “as cars roll, occupants are pulled out of their seats

and toward the roof”. According to the accident reconstruction expert, there is no evidence to

prove that the passenger seatbelt was used. Considering this information, if Jasmin had not

opened the sunroof in the first place it is less likely that she would have been thrown from the

vehicle in the occurrence of the accident.

Jasmin should be held partly responsible for her own injuries according to the concepts of

volenti non fit injura (EDUC 525, Oct. 3, 2017, powerpoint 6, slide 26) and contributory

negligence (EDUC 525, Oct 12, 2017, powerpoint 9, slides 8-10). Jasmin’s parents had signed

off on a consent form prior to the accident. This means that both Jasmin and her parents were

aware of the potential risks of this off-campus activity and were willing to accept responsibility

for any injuries incurred while on the trip. Jasmin was aware of both the faulty seatbelt and the

school’s transportation policy, and still voluntarily elected to enter the vehicle with Ballard.

Additionally, evidence showed that Jasmin also made the decision not to wear a seatbelt

(Learning Task 1, Option 1, 2017). Jasmin failed to act prudently in taking responsibility for her

own safety and as such, should be held partly responsible for her own injuries.

Conclusion

All three parties listed above should be held jointly liable for Jasmin’s injuries. There is

evidence to prove that Waterman, Ballard, and Jasmin were all negligent to varying degrees in

relation to the event that occurred on the day of the accident. We believe that Waterman should

be held liable for neglecting to provide a significant duty and standard of care for her students,

by failing to act in in accordance with the concept of loco parentis. There is evidence to assume

5
 EDUC 525- Ethics and Law in Education- Learning Task #1
6

that Ballard contributed to negligence by providing an unsafe mode of transportation for her

friend, and breaking both school and class policy. Finally, Jasmin is liable for her injuries

because she willingly contributed to negligence through the concept of volenti non fit injura. But

for Waterman overlooking the Transportation Guidelines for Students and both Ballard and

Jasmin’s negligence to abide by the act, Jasmin would not have been injured.

References

Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, 1993 CanLII 7301, Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench.

(1993). Retrieved from:

http://www.canlii.org/en/ab/abqb/doc/1993/1993canlii7301/1993canlii7301.html

Consumer Reports ( 2013, February) “Rollover 101: How rollovers happen and how to

avoid one.” “Beware of Country Roads” Retrieved from

http://www.consumerreports.org/cro/2012/02/rollover-101/index.htm

6
 EDUC 525- Ethics and Law in Education- Learning Task #1
7

EDUC 525. (October 3, 2017). PowerPoint 6. Slide 12. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2682599/View?ou=193

826

EDUC 525. (October 3, 2017). PowerPoint 6. Slide 24. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2682599/View?ou=193

826

EDUC 525. (October 3, 2017). PowerPoint 6. Slide 26. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2682599/View?ou=193

826

EDUC 525. (October 5, 2017). PowerPoint 7. Slide 32. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2684956/View

EDUC 525. (October 12, 2017). PowerPoint 9. Slide 8. Retrieved from

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2691331/View

EDUC 525. (2017). Student driver case [Learning task handout]. Retrieved from

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

Hoar v. Nanaimo School District 68, (1984) CarswellBC 756, British Columbia Court of Appeal.

(1984). Retrieved from:

https://d2l.ucalgary.ca/d2l/le/content/193826/viewContent/2638117/View