SlideServe
Télécharger Obtenir Pro
Menu
Accueil Pro
Préférences
ApparenceLight Aide et commentaires
© SlideServe · v2026

Duty of Care and Negligence

yukio avatar
yukio
11 diapositives · 320 Views · Aug 06, 2014

This document reviews significant Canadian court cases focused on duty of care and negligence within educational settings. The cases of Myers v. Peel County Board of Education, Thornton et al. v. Board of School Trustees, Fraser v. Campbell River School District, and Bain v. Calgary Board of Education highlight critical questions regarding the adequacy of equipment, the standard of care provided by educators, and responsibilities to student safety. These precedents help outline the legal obligations of educational authorities in ensuring student welfare.

#duty of care and negligence #duty of care and negligence ppt #powerpoint #presentation
Duty of Care and Negligence - slide 1
01 / 11Duty of Care and Negligence
1 / 17

Télécharger la présentation

Duty of Care and Negligence
Une image / un lien ci-dessous est fourni (tel quel) pour télécharger la présentation

Politique de téléchargement : le contenu du site vous est fourni TEL QUEL pour votre information et votre usage personnel ; il ne peut être vendu, concédé sous licence ni partagé sur d’autres sites sans l’accord de son auteur.Le contenu vous est fourni TEL QUEL, pour votre information et votre usage personnel uniquement. Téléchargez la présentation en cliquant sur ce lien. Lors du téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à télécharger une présentation, l’éditeur a peut-être supprimé le fichier de son serveur.Pendant le téléchargement, si vous ne parvenez pas à obtenir une présentation, le fichier a peut-être été supprimé par l’éditeur.

F I N

Plus de contenu associé

Transcription de la présentation

  1. Duty of Care and Negligence Alex Bradley, Fraser Turner, Sarah Arnold, Laura Holt and Courtney MacPhail

  2. Myers v. Peel County Board of Education Supreme Court of Canada December 6, 1972

  3. Questions Before the Court Was the equipment (mats) adequate?

  4. THORNTON et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 57 et al. British Columbia Supreme Court 1978

  5. Questions Before the Court Does Edamura have any reason to believe that Gary Thornton contained a high degree of proficiency in the gymnastics he was performing? Was the equipment determined to be reasonably safe for the purpose for which it is intended and was it suitably arranged? Did Edamura provide an adequate duty of care to act as the "careful parent of a large family" -- a concept adopted almost universally since Williams v. Eady (1893), 10 T.L.R. 41. Was Gary Thornton contributorily negligent?

  6. Fraser v. Campbell River School District No. 72 Cambell River, British Columbia November 1st 1984

  7. Questions Before the Court • Did Mr. Lawrason expose the boys to an undue risk of harm? • Could Mr. Lawrason have anticipated that injury might occur? • Could Mr. Lawrason have anticipated the dive?

  8. Bain (Guardian ad litem of) v. Calgary Board of Education Alberta Court of Queens Bench June 3rd, 1987

  9. Questions Before the Court • Did the defendant teacher owe a duty of care to the Plaintiff? • If a duty of care existed, what standard of care was required and was the standard met? • Did the failure to meet the standard of care cause the harm suffered? • Did the Plaintiff voluntarily accept the risk? (volentidefense) • Was the Plaintiff contributorily negligent?

  10. MAINVILLE v. OTTAWA BOARD OF EDUCATION AND MACLEAN Ottawa Small Claims Court February 2nd, 1989

  11. Questions Before the Court Was there a duty of care owed by the school authorities to provide supervision of its students? Did the school breach that duty of care by not providing supervision? Was such a breach of duty the sole cause of the plaintiff’s son’s injuries?