** Unedited **
Between Margaret Anne MacCabe, plaintiff, and Westlock Roman Catholic Separate School District No. 110, Peter Skitsko and Darcy Romanuik, defendants A.J. No. 1053 Action No. 9303 05787
Alberta Court of Queen’s Bench Judicial District of Edmonton Johnstone J.
Heard: November 17 – December 22, 1997. Judgment: October 5, 1998.
Ronald G. Cummings, Q.C., Beverly J. Larbalestier, Timothy M. Sax, Warren R. Stengel, for the plaintiff.
Eleanor A. Olszewski, Sandra L. Corbett, for defendants.
MEMORANDUM OF JUDGMENT
TABLE OF CONTENTS
II. PRELIMINARY MATTERS
A. Browne v. Dunn Argument
III. FACTS AND BACKGROUND
A. Monday, April 22, 1991
B. Tuesday, April 23, 1991
A. Interpretation of the Law of Negligence 1. Relevant Legislation
B. Interpretation of the Common Law
- Was a Duty of Care Owed?
- What is the Appropriate Standard of Care?
- Was the Standard of Care Met?
C. Application of the Evidence to the Four Thornton Criteria
- Appropriate Activity
- High Bar Station
- Mini-Trampoline Station (iii) Springboard/Full Height Box Horse/Crash Mat Station
- Proper Progressions (Progressively Coached and Trained to do an Activity Properly to Avoid Danger)
- Equipment Configuration
- Springboard/Full Height Box Horse/Crash Mat
- Mini-Trampoline/Crash Mat (iii) High Bar/Tumbling Mat Station
- The Law of Causation
- Breaches of the Standard of Care to be Tested for Cause in Fact
- The Defendant’s Position on Cause in Fact
- The Hypothetical Question
- Application of the Hypothetical Question to the Thornton Criteria
- The Causal Impact of Permitting Inappropriate Activities
- The Causal Impact of Failing to Ensure Progressive Training
- The Causal Impact of the Equipment Configurations
- The Causal Impact of Incorrect Supervision
- The Cumulative Effect of the Defendant’s Breaches
E. Voluntary Assumption of Risk
F. Contributory Negligence…