A - Introduction to Law 9/10 - Today we'll start the class by quickly finishing our forensics unit in Law. We'll finish the graphing activity from yesterday, then review the extraction and analysis of DNA and talk about its importance in police detective work. For the second half of the class we'll be in the library working on one of two things: your Clue Us In crime scene reconstruction project or the Rookie Training section of the
Rice University CSI Web experience site. I'd like you to mess around and coomplete the training for Forensic Biology (DNA), Toxicology, Firearms and Toolmarks (Ballistics), Medical Examiner (Pathologist) and CSI Ethics. For the Clue Us In activity take a look at the Smart Draw website for examples of
crime scene reconstruction and
accident scene reconstruction forms. Let me know what you're interested in and I can download a copy for you.
D - Geography 12 - Today we will begin watching Twister; one of the greatest yet dumbest disaster movies of the 1990's. Your job is to identify as many errors in meteorology as possible AND you'll need to figure out which character is MOST like Mr. Young.
Some errors are easy - NO! It is not possible to survive an EF5 tornado strike above ground tethered to drainage pipes. Some are more subtle - the Fujita scale was introduced in 1971 and in the 1969 flashback scene (at the beginning of the film) the weather reporter on the television (portrayed by Oklahoma City KWTV 9 meteorologist Gary England) said an F5 tornado was about to strike...two years before the scale was introduced by Dr. Ted Fujita!
Now as to characters...as I said above there are bits of Mr. Young in most of the characters in the movie your mission (should you choose to accept it) is to figure out who Mr. Young is most like. The mission is not impossible so is it Dr. Jo Harding? Bill Harding? Dustin 'Dusty' Davis? Robert 'Rabbit' Nurick? Jason 'Preacher' Rowe? No, Mr. Young is not like Dr. Melissa Reeves or Dr. Jonas Miller so let's get that over with now :) Let's have some fun with the movie and we'll finish it tomorrow
C - Law 12 - Today we'll quickly take a look at negligence defenses, motor vehicle negligence, professional negligence, and occupiers' liability. I put links on the blogsite yesterday for you on these topics and you should use them to help you with your project. Today we are in the library working on the case study project and there are a few things you should know about helping people in distress or need:
GOOD SAMARITAN ACT [RSBC 1996] CHAPTER 172
Section 1: No liability for emergency aid unless gross negligence
Section 2:Exceptions
Section 3:Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act
No liability for emergency aid unless gross negligence:
1 A person who renders emergency medical services or aid to an ill, injured or unconscious person, at the immediate scene of an accident or emergency that has caused the illness, injury or unconsciousness, is not liable for damages for injury to or death of that person caused by the person's act or omission in rendering the medical services or aid unless that person is grossly negligent.
Exceptions
2 Section 1 does not apply if the person rendering the medical services or aid
(a) is employed expressly for that purpose, or
(b) does so with a view to gain.
Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act
3 The Health Care (Consent) and Care Facility (Admission) Act does not affect anything in this Act.
COMMON LAW: The Duty To Assist
As a general principle, common law does not require a bystander to help someone in peril - the priest and the Levite would not be liable for failing to assist the stranger. Common law jurisdictions generally rely on inducements - the carrot and stick approach - to persuade citizens to aid others by minimizing risk to themselves. However, several exceptions exist where failure to act could result in both civil and criminal liability. A "special relationship" may give rise to a duty to assist. Such a relationship exists when, for example, one party derives an economic advantage from the other. An employer may be obligated to assist an employee injured at work. In an accident, common carriers must assist passengers, and innkeepers must aid their quests. Although the spectrum of special relationships has not yet been determined by the courts, the scope will likely expand as it has in the United States.
Another exception occurs when a person creates a situation placing another in danger. A negligent motorist who causes an accident involving injuries is liable if he or she does not provide assistance. In some circumstances, a person is assumed to have a duty to assist because of the nature of his or her job. Policemen and Firemen, not good samaritans since it is their job to assist in an emergency. In general, a good samaritan is not paid for rescuing people in danger.
Risks Of A Good Samaritan
In Legal theory, the bystander is safe as long as he or she does absolutely nothing. But as soon as steps are taken to help, immunity for failing to act is removed. If a bystander decides to act as a good samaritan and chooses to intervene, he or she will be liable to the victim if rescue actions were unreasonable, and indeed aggravated the plight of the sufferer.
So long as nothing is done to worsen the situation, a good samaritan can abandon the rescue effort and leave the scene. A point is reached, however, when someone who intervenes is considered to have assumed a legal duty to act, but the rule and limits have not been tested.
The good samaritan probably runs greater risk of being held liable for personal injury or damage to property to a third party than to the victim. But the old common law defense of necessity protects a rescuer from liability for trespass if the individual enters another's property or uses others' goods necessary to save lives or protect property. A good samaritan can break into a garage and seize an axe to save a stranger trapped in a burning car.
Rights Of A Good Samaritan
What happens when a good samaritan suffers injuries or damage to his or her property as a result of responding to a call for help? Courts formerly considered that risk of loss or injury was voluntarily assumed. Today, the rights of a good samaritan to claim compensation depend mainly on whether the emergency was caused by another's negligence or fault. If danger is caused by the victim, the good samaritan can claim compensation from the victim. If a third party causes the situation, both rescuer and victim can recover damages from that person.
The Ogopogo Case
The case of Horsley v MacLaren, 1970, represents a controversial example of the right to compensation. A quest (Matthews) on a power boat (the Ogopogo) owned by the defendant (MacLaren) fell overboard into Lake Ontario. MacLaren tried to rescue Matthews but was unsuccessful. Meanwhile, the plaintiff Horsley (another quest) attempted to save Matthews but both men drowned. The court held that MacLaren had a duty to rescue Matthews because of a special relationship - a power boat operator owed a duty of protective care to the passengers - and if negligent, MacLaren would be liable to Matthews (or his dependents).
Horsley, on the other hand, was a good samaritan with no duty to rescue Matthews. His only recourse was against MacLaren and his right to compensation depended on whether MacLaren had been negligent to Matthews, which the Supreme Court found not to be the case. Since MacLaren was not liable to Matthews, he could not be liable to Horsley.
