Tuesday, May 15. 2012

Today's schedule is C-D-A-B

C Block Geography 12 - We'll spend the class finishing our review of hurricanes. We’ll start with the Raging Planet Hurricane episode (yesterday, we left when Dr. Ivor Van Heerden was surveying the damage from Hurricane Ike on Galveston Island off the east coast of Texas) and then we’ll take a look at climatology and climate types on the planet, making sense of the Koppen climate classification system. Tomorrow, Thursday and Friday we're in the library working on our next project which I'll post more on tomorrow.

D Block Criminology 12 - Today we'll try to make sense of mass and serial murder. First we'll finish the Law & Order Criminal Intent episode "Jones" that we started on Friday and chat about it afterwards. After that we'll we'll discuss murder and homicide. We'll discuss the divisions of murder in Canada (1st and 2nd degree and manslaughter), the extent of murder in Canada, and murderous relations (acquaintance and stranger homicide). Finally, I'd like you to explain the types of serial and mass murderer along with the reasons why they commit these crimes. You can find the answers to this in the work of Jack Levin and James Alan Fox "Multiple Homicide: Patterns of Serial and Mass Murder". The summary of their work is on pages 234 and 235 of the textbook in the Criminological Enterprise section. For more info look at the work of John Douglas (former FBI profiler) on mindhunter.com (look in the article section and there is a great read entitled "So, you want to become a profiler..."). You will need to use this work to help with yesterday's blog entry.

In order to understand mass murder and motives we will dedicate some time this week to the murders at Columbine High School in Littleton Colorado a decade ago. We'll examine the Department of Justice (FBI) Critical Incident Response Group report "The School Shooter: A Threat Assessment Perspective" and the Columbine Review Commission report of Governor Bill Owens. In essence we'll look at the background of Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold as well as the types of behavior, personality traits, and circumstances in the family, school, and community environment that should be regarded as warning signs of school shooters.

A Block Social Studies 11 - Today we'll continue our look at the "Quiet Revolution" in Quebec. We'll examine English Canada's response to the Lesage and Johnson governments in Quebec. From yesterday's blog entry: We'll go through pages 198 – 204 as a class and then we will watch Canada: A People’s History episode “Years of Hope and Anger” chapter 12 "October 1970". This deals with the Front de Libération de Québec (Quebec Liberation Front) whose actions culminated with the kidnapping of James Cross (who was released) and Pierre Laporte (who died while in FLQ custody) in the province of Quebec. The Canadian Prime Minister (Pierre-Eliott Trudeau) responded by imposing the War Measures Act in Quebec (suspending civil liberties). You'll need to work on questions 4 a & 5 a from page 194.

B Block 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. Tomorrow through Friday 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 SamaritanIn 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.