B Block Geography 12 - Today, we are in the library for day two of research for our severe weather video-poster-powerpoint project. Remember that there are these things in the library called "books"; you may remember what they look like...there are paper pages with pictures and information on them bound together. Sarcasm aside please remember that you will need to have at least one print (book or magazine) source for your presentation. I have books in my room on severe weather that you might want to look at. The purpose of this project is to learn about severe weather and your topic in depth. Please do not plagiarize work and present it as if it were your own. Show me what you have learned. Tomorrow is our last day this week to work on this during class time so don't get lost on youtube watching videos of people getting struck by lightning or hit by hail (no matter how cool that is!) Having said that the Discovery Channel has a great series called Raging Planet (we've watched it in class) with some cool video footage that you could embed in your power point presentation here: Discovery Channel Raging Planet Yesterday's blog entry has all of the particular details on the project along with links for you to use. Use your time wisely and good luck.
A Block Law 12 - Today we'll quickly take a look at negligence defenses, motor vehicle negligence, professional negligence, and occupiers' liability. I'll put links on the blogsite tomorrow for you on these topics and you should use them to help you with your project. 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 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.
D Block Social Studies 11 - Today is going to be a video watching and work doing day. I’d like you to examine the transformation of Canadian society in the 1960's and the 1970's (challenging the status quo). You'll start with the beginning episode of Canada: A People’s History Volume 11 “Years of Hope and Anger” which sets the stage for the 1960’s. After watching it, I'd like to talk with you about your impressions of the section and your thoughts on the1960’s. Next, you'll get the “Challenging the Status Quo” worksheet and you'll need to fill it in using pages 177 to 181 and pages 208 to 210 of the Counterpoints textbook along with the Canada: A People's History episodes “Do Your Own Thing” (which deals with the “youthquake” and the environmental movement) “A Question of Equality” and “A Most Fundamental Choice” (which deal with the women's movement in Canada) and lastly “Taking Back the Past”(which deals with the Aboriginal Nations rights movement). We'll finish looking at the shift in Canadian culture from the 1950's through to the 1980's. We'll look at the CBC, the Massey Commission and the CRTC. We'll look at Medicare and social welfare programs. We'll look at the changes to immigration in Canada, the points system and multiculturalism. This will lead us to our look next week at divisive issues within Canada concerning Quebec and the First Nations in our country.
C Block Crime, Media & Society 12 - Today we continue the Casey Anthony trial coverage from 2011 in the USA. Yesterday we watched two-thirds of "the State vs Casey Anthony" and today we'll finish the video. After, we'll talk about the facts and particulars of the case and I'll ask you to answer the following:
- What are your immediate reactions to the Dateline video we just watched and why do you think that the Cindy Anthony (grandmother) Casey Anthony (mother), and Caylee Anthony (murdered daughter) debacle generated so much media coverage in the USA?
After this we'll talk about the German psychology/sociology term Schadenfreude. This term deals with a big concept - that as humans, we have a private rush of glee when someone else struggles (we take delight in another person's pain and misfortune). Schadenfreude registers in the brain as a pleasurable experience, a satisfaction comparable to that of eating a good meal.Schadenfreude is a common and normal part of life but can become dangerous if we lose empathy,fall into demonizing others, or lapse into “us vs. them” thinking. There is a human fascination with murder as entertainment and news media companies have turned the story of the death of a toddler into a primetime circus...a story that we can safely watch and perhaps feel a little guilty pleasure in the fact that we're better than Casey Anthony. Her pain and suffering on television brings us delight and makes us feel good in that we are not the monster that the media has portrayed her out to be...sigh.
HLN's Nancy Grace covered the Casey Anthony trial heavily in 2011. Here's an example of the daily coverage she and HLN broadcast
Here's what the HBO television series The Newsroom had to say about Nancy Grace's coverage of the Casey Anthony case
And after the verdict here's what she had to say - which further shaped the public's opinion of Casey Anthony even after she was found not guilty by a jury of her peers
Now, here's what the media had to say about the media covering the Casey Anthony trial
Whew...so in the end here's my two questions for you to answer:
- Who would you want deciding your guilt or innocence? A jury of your peers or CNN and Nancy Grace? Regardless of your opinion of Casey Anthony is it possible for her to escape the negative label of "Tot Mom" and will she ever be able to avoid the horrible mother image presented by CNN and Nancy Grace?
-
How does the concept of Schadenfreude apply to the Casey Anthony trial? How would low self-esteem make someone more likely to seek out schadenfreude-filled crime media?
No comments:
Post a Comment