Duty of Care and Negligence. Alex Bradley, Fraser Turner, Sarah Arnold, Laura Holt and Courtney MacPhail. THORNTON et al. v. BOARD OF SCHOOL TRUSTEES OF SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 57 et al. British Columbia Supreme Court 1978. Questions Before the Court.
Download Policy: Content on the Website is provided to you AS IS for your information and personal use and may not be sold / licensed / shared on other websites without getting consent from its author.While downloading, if for some reason you are not able to download a presentation, the publisher may have deleted the file from their server.
Alex Bradley, Fraser Turner, Sarah Arnold, Laura Holt and
OF SCHOOL DISTRICT No. 57 et al.
British Columbia Supreme 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?
Supreme Court of Canada
June 22, 1981
Whether or not the equipment (mats) were adequate?
Whether or not supervision was adequate?
Alberta Court of Queens Bench
June 3rd, 1987
Supreme court of British Columbia
Ottawa Small Claims Court
February 2nd, 1989
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?