Field Trip Safety and Liability: A Guide for Families

School field trips are a cherished tradition, providing students with hands-on learning experiences outside the classroom. However, these excursions also raise important legal questions regarding liability. When accidents occur, who is responsible? This blog will explore the liability issues surrounding school field trips and the role of consent forms in legal proceedings, particularly in the context of Ontario law.

Who Is Liable?

Liability during school field trips can be complex, involving multiple parties. The primary stakeholders typically include:

• school boards: School boards have a duty of care to ensure the safety of their students. This includes providing adequate supervision and ensuring that the trip is well planned and executed. If a student is injured due to negligence on the part of the school, the school board may be held liable.
  

• teachers and chaperones: Teachers and adult chaperones are responsible for the direct supervision of students during field trips. If a chaperone fails to fulfill their duty of care, they may be personally liable for any injuries that occur because of their negligence.
  

• third-party vendors: Many field trips involve third-party vendors, such as museums or amusement parks. If an injury occurs due to unsafe conditions at these venues, the vendor may also bear liability.
  

In cases where negligence has occurred, the injured party must demonstrate that the responsible party failed to meet the standard of care expected in that situation. This can involve proving that the school or chaperones acted in a way that a reasonably prudent person would not have under similar circumstances.

The Role of Consent Forms

Consent forms or permission slips are often used by schools to mitigate liability during field trips. Parents are typically required to sign these forms, acknowledging the risks associated with the trip and granting permission for their child to participate. However, the enforceability of these forms in court can vary. While Ontario schools may use waivers or consent forms to limit liability for inherent risks, these waivers are generally unenforceable against minors in cases of negligence. This is consistent with broader legal principles and case law, though not explicitly codified in the Education Act. The Education Act outlines school board responsibilities but does not grant immunity from negligence.

• Informed consent: For a consent form to be valid, it must provide sufficient information about the risks involved. Parents should be made aware of potential dangers, and the form should not contain vague language that could mislead them.
  

• Limitations on liability: While consent forms can help protect schools and chaperones from liability, they cannot absolve them of responsibility for gross negligence or willful misconduct. Courts may look unfavourably on consent forms if they are deemed to undermine the duty of care owed to students.
  

• Age of the minor: Courts often consider the age of the student when evaluating consent forms. A minor may not have the legal capacity to fully understand or consent to risk, which can impact the enforceability of the form.
  

Legal Precedents and Considerations

In Ontario, several legal precedents have shaped the understanding of liability during school field trips. Courts have consistently held that schools owe a duty of care equivalent to that of a careful and prudent parent, especially when students are off school property.

One notable case is Peters v. Peel District School Board, 2016 ONSC 4788, where a student was injured during a long-jump practice. The court found that the school board had met the standard of care, referencing the Supreme Court’s decision in Myers v. Peel County Board of Education, 1981 CanLII 27 (SCC), which established the “prudent parent” standard. This case reinforced that liability depends on the nature of the activity, the level of supervision, and the students’ training and experience.

In contrast, the tragic case of R. v. Mills (2021) involved the drowning of a student, Jeremiah Perry, during a school canoe trip. Although the teacher was acquitted of criminal negligence, the court acknowledged that his conduct fell below the expected standard of care, particularly in allowing a non-swimmer to participate without reassessing the risks. The case highlighted the importance of adhering to school board safety protocols and reassessing risks in real time.

Additionally, in Thomas v. Hamilton (City), Board of Education, 1994 CanLII 739 (ON CA), the Ontario Court of Appeal ruled that permission forms do not shield schools from liability due to negligence. While such forms may demonstrate that parents accepted the normal risks of an activity, they do not absolve schools from their duty to provide adequate supervision and safety measures. This highlights the necessity for schools to not only rely on consent forms but also to implement robust safety protocols.

Beyond the Permission Slip: Protecting Students and Schools

Liability during school field trips is a multifaceted issue that involves various parties, including school districts, teachers, and third-party vendors. While consent forms serve as a tool to inform parents of potential risks and limit liability, they are not a blanket shield against legal action. Schools must prioritize student safety through thorough planning and supervision to reduce the risk of accidents and potential lawsuits. For parents and educators navigating these complexities, consulting with legal professionals, such as the Kelly Greenway Bruce law firm in Lindsay, can provide clarity and guidance on best practices and legal obligations. Ensuring that both students and educators are protected during these valuable learning experiences is paramount in fostering a safe educational environment.