Evan MacIntyre, in relative terms, has had an unlucky recent history.  When he was 14, a lawn mower engine fell on his right wrist.  When he was 15, a car hit his right leg as he was walking in a crosswalk.  When he was 19, the truck he was driving was hit from behind by a van.  These accidents left him with injuries that he claims continue to have a significant impact on his ability to work and enjoy recreational activities. 

Oy vey.

Evan started a lawsuit against the alleged wrongdoers for all three injuries, and the three claims resulted in a single judgment – MacIntyre v. Pitt Meadows Secondary School (CanLII).  Ultimately, Evan was generally victorious and was ordered a significant damages award, but on the most interesting claim – the one against his school and school board – he failed.

In 2002, Evan was a 14 year-old grade 9 student at Pitt Meadows Secondary School.  The facts surrounding the injury he suffered in shop class one day were difficult for the court to determine.  He did not tell his teacher or the school about the incident for two years, when Evan started the lawsuit.  He told his parents little about the incident until shortly before then.  The only evidence available about the engine hitting his wrist came from Evan himself.  He could offer no evidence of why or how it happened.  Ultimately, the court determined that Evan himself had no actual recollection of the events that occurred on the day of the incident.

Interestingly, the court found that it did not need to know how the accident happened to find the school authorities negligent.  The court considered several factors in rejecting Evan’s claim:

In the trial decision in Thornton v. Prince George School District No. 57, reflex, [1975] 3 W.W.R. 622 (B.C.S.C.), rev’d on other grounds (1976), 73 D.L.R. (3d) 35 (B.C.C.A.), Andrews J. found that the teacher owed a duty to ensure that the equipment provided is reasonably safe for the purpose for which it is intended:  632.  In Wells v. Smithers School District No. 54, [1987] B.C.J. No. 2297 (S.C.), Legg J. considered a case involving an injury arising from the use of a planer in a woodworking class.  He noted that a planer is a dangerous machine and found that a school owed a strict duty of care to a student operating a dangerous machine.  In finding liability against the school in that case, he balanced three factors:  the probability of an accident happening; the possible seriousness of its consequences; and the costs of reducing the risk of injury.

In this case:

  • the activity that day in the shop class was not inherently dangerous;
  • there was a minimal risk of serious injury;
  • the students were mature and competent enough to participate without constant supervision;
  • the teacher had provided the students with sufficient safety instructions; and
  • the equipment provided was reasonably safe for its intended use.

Schools are filled with constant potential for teenage injuries.  Teachers, schools and school boards should look to decisions like MacIntyre for guidance on the criteria by which their conduct will be judged if – even two years after an incident – a student brings forward a claim for negligence.

If you enjoyed this post, make sure you subscribe to my RSS feed!

  • Share/Bookmark