|
THORNTON V. PRINCE GEORGE
|
|
SCHOOL DISTRICT
NO. 57
|
Thornton
et al. v. Prince George School District No. 57
[1978]
2 S.C.R. 267
Supreme
Court of Canada
In 1971, Gary Thornton was
participating in a physical education class at Prince George High School in
British Columbia. He was 15 years old
and about 185 cm tall. A box horse had
been placed at the lower end of a springboard, so that a spring would elevate
the gymnast high enough to do a somersault.
The teacher, David Edamura, had approved this arrangement. The boys, however, had never before used the
equipment this way. After organizing the
class, Edamura went to one end of the gym to complete report cards. As a result, he was not able to observe the
class activity directly.
After
one student had landed on the floor and suffered a broken wrist while
attempting a double somersault, foam rubber mats were added around the
springboard. When Thornton’s turn came,
he overshot the thick landing mats, landed on his head on the thin foam mats,
and was taken immediately to hospital.
Thornton had a fracture of the spinal cord that left him a quadriplegic;
he would require constant care for the rest of his life. His life expectancy was 54 years. Although physically handicapped, his mental
faculties were unimpaired.
Thornton’s
parents brought an action for negligence on his behalf against the school board
and the teacher. In January 1975, the
British Columbia Supreme Court awarded $1.5 million. On appeal by the school board, the Court of
Appeal confirmed the negligence of the school board and the teacher but reduced
the award to $600 000. Thornton appealed
this decision to the Supreme Court of Canada where, in January 1978, the Court
made a final award of $810 000.
The
original trial judgments awarded the plaintiffs $200 000 for pain and suffering
and loss of enjoyment of life. The
Supreme Court of Canada reduced this amount to $100 000.
Please Answer
1.
Does this case answer in the
affirmative (“YES”) to each of the five elements of Negligence? Explain each one.
2.
Why did Thornton’s parents bring
this action to the court on their son’s behalf?
3.
Why was the action brought against the
Prince George School Board as well as the teacher?
4.
Did the teacher do what was expected or
required of him as a physical education teacher? Why or why not?
5.
Do you think the Supreme Court’s award
of $100 000 for pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life was a fair and
reasonable settlement?
 |
Also, to complete your study of Tort
Law, please ensure that you are familiar with each of the terms under Chapter Highlights
on page 430 of the text.
Also, please answer, in your notes, pp
430 – 431, Questions:
·
1-7
·
11
·
12 (but not the last part, “Prepare a
report . . . “)
No comments:
Post a Comment