Advertisement

Interchange

, Volume 48, Issue 2, pp 195–203 | Cite as

Student Drivers and the Fiduciary Duty of School Boards

  • James Kent Donlevy
  • Dianne Gereluk
  • Jim Brandon
  • Peggy Patterson
Article

Abstract

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.

Keywords

Supra Note School Board Hypothetical Case Fiduciary Duty Injured Student 
These keywords were added by machine and not by the authors. This process is experimental and the keywords may be updated as the learning algorithm improves.

References

  1. 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
  2. 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

Copyright information

© Springer Science+Business Media Dordrecht 2017

Authors and Affiliations

  1. 1.University of CalgaryCalgaryCanada

Personalised recommendations