Student Drivers and the Fiduciary Duty of School Boards
Following E.D.G. v. Hammer, Canadian law has held that school boards, although they have a fiduciary duty to their students, do not guarantee the safety of their students from the acts of their employees. The scope of that fiduciary duty is narrow, restricted to a board acting with disloyalty, in bad faith, or in a conflict of interest to its students, which causes them injury. This paper takes the position that the scope of that duty should include cases where a school board’s policy allows students to use their own cars to drive fellow students to school-sponsored functions.
KeywordsSupra Note School Board Hypothetical Case Fiduciary Duty Injured Student
- Dickinson, G. M. (2004). Breach of non-delegable duty and fiduciary duty put to rest as grounds for board liability in janitor assault of pupil. Education & Law Journal, 13(3), 433–436.Google Scholar
- Hunter, D., & Dolmage, R. (2013). Fiduciary duty and school board takeovers in Canada since 1981: Fumbling toward a framework? Education Law Journal, 22, 153–187.Google Scholar