Running head: THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 1
The Law Assignment: Negligence
Norhan Alniaimy 10121321, Ashley Blanchard 30011447, Megan McClary 30001602, Cecilia
Nguyen 10175036, Sylvia Rutherford 30063190, & Laura Wostradowski 10170632
University of Calgary
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 2
Introduction
The incident occurred on Tuesday, June 9th, 2001 when Amanda Ballard was driving a
fellow student, Prim Irwin back to Trudeau High School following a Physical Education event at
Marabelle Golf Course. The 1999 GMC Envoy that Ballard was driving rolled over, throwing
Irwin from the vehicle leaving her quadriplegic. In our opinion, Amanda Ballard, Prim Irwin,
Lindsay Waterman, the principal, and vicariously the school board are all liable for the injuries
sustained by Irwin. Our arguments for negligence are that Ballard failed to act as a responsible
driver contributing to Irwin’s injuries; Irwin chose to sit in the car knowing the seatbelt was not
functional; Waterman and the principal failed in their duty of care by not confirming the
location of the off-campus activity and failing to confirm the functionality of the vehicle. The
concluding ratio of 20-10-70 for damages should be held respectively for Ballard, Irwin, and
Waterman and the principal.
Test
The tort that will be applied to this case will be an unintentional tort: negligence. This
includes a test for duty of care, standard of care, breach, damages, and causation (Wong, 2019).
Analysis
Case #1: Amanda Ballard
Duty of care. As the driver of the vehicle, Ballard assumed a duty of care towards her
passenger, Irwin.
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 3
Standard of Care. A responsible and prudent driver would have driven safely and not
permitted a passenger to travel in the front seat without a working seatbelt.
Breach. Firstly, Ballard failed to act reasonably as a driver. “Ballard was charged with
Driving Carelessly under section 115(2)(b) of the Traffic Safety Act of Alberta” (Donlevy, n.d., p.
1). Section 115 of the Traffic Safety Act reads, “(2) A person shall not do any of the following: ...
(b) drive a vehicle on a highway in a manner that constitutes driving carelessly” (Traffic Safety
Act, 2000, p. 133-134). Ballard’s driving caused a “trip” which led to the rollover (“Car Rollover
101,” 2014, para. 4). Ballard also knew that her front passenger side seatbelt was broken, but
she permitted Irwin to sit in the front seat of her vehicle. Thus, she contributed to Irwin’s
injuries, and breached the standard of care.
Causation. Ballard failed to drive safely, which caused the incident.
Case #2: Prim Irwin
Duty of Care. Irwin had a duty of care to herself in assuring her own safety in a vehicle.
Standard of Care. A responsible and prudent passenger would have ensured she was
wearing a properly working seatbelt.
Breach. Irwin did not use a seatbelt in the vehicle. In a rollover crash, “[b]elts help keep
you in the seat so you are not tossed around” (“Car Rollover 101,” 2014, para. 12). She was
aware that the seatbelt was not in working condition as she had overheard the day before and
knowingly chose to sit in the front seat. Similarly, Myers chose to do a skill for the first time
without any training or the presence of a spotter, knowing it was unsafe in Myers v. Peel County
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 4
Board of Education (1981) and in Bain v. Calgary Board of Education (1993), Bain chose to climb
the mountain even though others told him it was unsafe. Irwin also opened the sunroof, which
made it possible for her to be thrown out of the vehicle. Ergo, she contributed to her own
injuries.
Causation. Irwin knowingly chose to sit in a seat in Ballard’s vehicle without a working
seatbelt. Despite conflicting evidence on whether Irwin was wearing a seatbelt at the time of
the incident, we accept the evidence from the accident reconstruction expert who failed to find
evidence that the malfunctioning seatbelt was used. Even though witnesses say Irwin regularly
uses a seatbelt, evidence shows that she failed to do so this time. Failing to use a functioning
seatbelt and opening the sunroof contributed to her own injuries during the incident.
Case #3: Lindsay Waterman, The Principal, & The School Board
Duty of Care. As the supervising teacher for the trip to Marabelle Resort Golf Course,
Waterman had a duty of care to all her students as stated in section 18(1) of the School Act
(2002):
“A teacher while providing instruction or supervision must… (f) maintain, under
the direction of the principal, order and discipline 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.”
A teacher also has a duty of care to all her students as stated in section 6 of the Teaching
Quality Standard: “a teacher is bound by standards of conduct expected of a caring,
knowledgeable and reasonable adult entrusted with the custody, care or education of
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 5
students” (Alberta Education, n.d., p. 7). As the principal of the school, they have a duty of care
for all students according to section 20 of the School Act (2002), which states: “A principal of a
school must… (f) maintain order and discipline in the school and on the school grounds and
during activities sponsored or approved by the board.”
Standard of Care. According to common law, a supervising teacher takes on the role, as
stated in Myers v. Peel County Board of Education (1981), of “the careful or prudent parent” (p.
11). An educator’s standard of care is also dictated by in loco parentis where the teacher is
expected to act as a parental delegate responsible for the children (Wong, 2019). In this case, a
prudent, responsible parent would have inspected Ballard’s vehicle to ensure the safety of
Ballard and that each student had their own ride. This is against the “Transportation Guidelines
for Students” (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2). A prudent parent would have also confirmed the location of
the Marabelle Resort Golf Course prior to the field trip.
Breach. Waterman and the principal failed to confirm the location of the off-campus
activity and allowed students to drive their private vehicles even though it did not abide by the
school division’s “Transportation Guidelines for Students” (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2). This states that
the use of private vehicles is only to be permitted if the facility was within city limits. The speed
limit within the city is 40 km/h, whereas the speed limit on the highway was 100 km/h.
Rollovers are more likely to occur in high-speed rural areas (“Car Rollover 101,” 2014, para. 16-
17). Even though, the school had outlined transportation guidelines, which does not permit=
students to transport another student to school-sponsored activities (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2), she
should have still checked to confirm that each student had their own ride. She did not act as a
prudent and responsible parent as per the standard of care dictated by common law and in loco
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 6
parentis in that she did not check Ballard’s car to ensure its safety and that each student had
their own ride.
The parents of both students signed consent forms for the field trip stating that their
children could attend and that the school and its teachers would not be held liable for incidents
where their children were injured (Donlevy, n.d., p. 3). However, permission forms do not waive
the liability of negligent educators (Wong, 2019, p. 30).
The school board is held vicariously liable since Waterman had taken the students to a
curriculum related activity which falls within the scope of her employment, so Waterman and
the principal would be covered by the board according to section 60(1)(b) of the School Act
(School Act, 2000).
Causation. But for Waterman and the principal’s lack of confirmation on the location,
the incident would not have occurred as the students would not have been driving to and from
the activity. Secondly, Waterman’s failure to check the vehicle to ensure the safety of her
students and that each student had their own ride, also led to the incident in that Waterman
could have provided Irwin with alternate transportation, as dictated by the “Transportation
Guidelines for Students” (Donlevy, n.d., p. 2).
Damages
The damages for all cases are compensatory and will comprise of pecuniary damages,
which will include medical bills, and nonpecuniary damages, which will include pain, suffering
and loss of opportunity (Poortvliet, 2019).
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 7
Conclusion
Ballard, Irwin, and Waterman and the principal with the school board are liable for the
incident that took place on Tuesday, June 9th, 2001 and the injuries Irwin received. A ratio of
20-10-70 for damages should be held respectively for Ballard, Irwin, and Waterman and the
principal (with the school board) as they are all liable. Most damages go to Waterman and the
principal (with the school board) as the incident would have not occurred in the first place if the
location was confirmed by the principal and Waterman.
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 8
References
Alberta Education. (n.d.). Teaching quality standard [PDF]. Retrieved from
[Link]
Bain v. Calgary Board of Education, 1993 CanLII 7301 Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench. (1993).
Retrieved from [Link]
Car rollover 101: How rollovers happen and what you can do to avoid one. (April 2014).
Consumer Report. Retrieved from
[Link]
Donlevy, J.K. (n.d.) Student drivers [Class handout]. Retrieved from University of Calgary D2L
site: [Link]
Gu (Litigation guardian of) v. Friesen, 2013 Acheson Sweeney Foley Sahota 607 Supreme Court
of British Columbia. (2013). Retrieved from
[Link]
Myers v. Peel County Board of Education, 1981 CanLII 27 Supreme Court of Canada. (1981).
Retrieved from [Link]
Poortvliet, K. (2019). Pecuniary & non-pecuniary damages: Definitions & examples. Retrieved
from [Link]
[Link]
Traffic Safety Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta. (2000, Chapter T-6). Retrieved from
[Link]
THE LAW ASSIGNMENT 9
School Act, Revised Statutes of Alberta. (2000, Chapter S-3). Retrieved from
[Link]
Wong, H. (2019, September 26). Tort of negligence [PowerPoint slides]. Retrieved from
University of Calgary D2L site: [Link]
