A Tragic Avalanche Incident Imagine losing students during a physical activity field trip due to supervisors lacking training or not adhering to regulations. Physical activity is encouraged in schools its crucial for students physical and mental health. Research has shown how physical activity reduces the risk of obtaining medical conditions such as heart disease, obesity, and type 2 diabetes. As well how physically active students tend to perform better in schools such as higher grades, greater confidence, and cognitive performance (memory, and concentration) (Physical Activity Facts, CDC, 2018). Field trips are a fundamental part of any school; field trips is defined as “A school field trip is a supervised teacher or school-sponsored activity
…show more content…
Was there a direct connection between the defendant’s action and the plaintiff’s injury or loss (causation)? Furthermore, was it foreseeable? – Yes, there were many clues such as the weather and park Canada’s warning for the slope which hinted that they should cancel the trip.
5. Did the plaintiff actually suffer harm or loss? – Yes, seven students ages 15-16 were lost Overall the answer to all five questions indicates that an act of negligence has occurred on behalf of the school and staff because they breached their duty of care.
“The duty must be breached – the duty of care owed by a teacher to a student is breached if the teacher does not provide a standard of care that a reasonable person would expect under the circumstances to protect a student from injury. Teachers are expected to use the same amount of caution that a careful or prudent parent would display in the care of their own children. This is an objective standard of care against which a teacher’s conduct will be measured.” (Alberta physical activity guidelines, 2013, p.4)
Therefore, one would agree with the parent's action of filling a suit of negligence on the school for three main reasons first the teachers or staffs careless course of action, second, they were not well prepared and finally interacting with this dangerous slope could have been …show more content…
From the perspective of the school board (teacher and principals), they do not perceive themselves at fault as the parents should have been aware of the dangers that can happen on this trip. The parents/guardians were sent a consent form that listed all the details of the trip, and even the hazards that can occur. Furthermore, according to British Colombia and Alberta Field Trip Guide, they are required to have a 1 to 12 ratio when it comes to supervision of students for a regular field trip. While for hazardous field trips they increase the amount of supervision (Safety Guidelines for Physical Activity, 2013; Regulation 3545.2 Field trips, 2016). In this case, the school filled the requirements through ensuring that there was an adequate number of adult supervision for the students, there were three supervisors for fourteen students which is greater ratio compared to the required ratio for a regular trip. Parents view. The parents regarded the situation as an act of negligence from the school despite receiving a consent form and learning of the dangers. The supervisors on the trip did not commit to their full role as an authority. According to both the School Act of British Colombia and Alberta one of the duties of the teachers is
Was there a direct connection between the defendant’s action and the plaintiff’s injury or loss (causation)? Furthermore, was it foreseeable? – Yes, there were many clues such as the weather and park Canada’s warning for the slope which hinted that they should cancel the trip.
5. Did the plaintiff actually suffer harm or loss? – Yes, seven students ages 15-16 were lost Overall the answer to all five questions indicates that an act of negligence has occurred on behalf of the school and staff because they breached their duty of care.
“The duty must be breached – the duty of care owed by a teacher to a student is breached if the teacher does not provide a standard of care that a reasonable person would expect under the circumstances to protect a student from injury. Teachers are expected to use the same amount of caution that a careful or prudent parent would display in the care of their own children. This is an objective standard of care against which a teacher’s conduct will be measured.” (Alberta physical activity guidelines, 2013, p.4)
Therefore, one would agree with the parent's action of filling a suit of negligence on the school for three main reasons first the teachers or staffs careless course of action, second, they were not well prepared and finally interacting with this dangerous slope could have been …show more content…
From the perspective of the school board (teacher and principals), they do not perceive themselves at fault as the parents should have been aware of the dangers that can happen on this trip. The parents/guardians were sent a consent form that listed all the details of the trip, and even the hazards that can occur. Furthermore, according to British Colombia and Alberta Field Trip Guide, they are required to have a 1 to 12 ratio when it comes to supervision of students for a regular field trip. While for hazardous field trips they increase the amount of supervision (Safety Guidelines for Physical Activity, 2013; Regulation 3545.2 Field trips, 2016). In this case, the school filled the requirements through ensuring that there was an adequate number of adult supervision for the students, there were three supervisors for fourteen students which is greater ratio compared to the required ratio for a regular trip. Parents view. The parents regarded the situation as an act of negligence from the school despite receiving a consent form and learning of the dangers. The supervisors on the trip did not commit to their full role as an authority. According to both the School Act of British Colombia and Alberta one of the duties of the teachers is