C Block Crime, Media and Society 12
- Today you'll start the class with time to work on your clique assignment (due
today) or your social influences assignment (due next Tuesday - December 10th).
After we'll look at the Law & Order Los Angeles episode "Hollywood". This
episode combined three separate pop culture story stories/themes.- First is the Bling Ring, the crew of Southern California teenyboppers who burgled celebrity homes by tracking their marks’ whereabouts via the Internet. The band of seven, which included E! reality star Alexis Neiers, burglarized the homes of Lindsay Lohan, Megan Fox and Brian Austin Green, Orlando Bloom and Miranda Kerr, Rachel Bilson, Audrina Patridge and Paris Hilton, who was reportedly robbed a total of five times by the group.
- Second is the Brody Jenner type reality TV star, an L.A. rich kid who dated his way into pseudo-stardom.
- Third, there is a version of the Lindsay-Dina Lohan mommy-daughter psychodrama, complete with lots of heavy talk about living through/off your children...remember the cartoon from yesterday's class "Children's Guide to Growing Up: Social Class"? Hmmm...lots of stuff from yesterday's cartoon in today's Law & Order: Los Angeles episode.
On Monday I'll ask you to take a look at this episode and try to make sense
of the sociological reasons why the ring did what they did AND the reasons why
the media covered the story so strongly. Enjoy the episode!
D Block Law 12 - Today we'll quickly take a second look at negligence and I'll go through Parker and James v. Douglas and Dratch (1998), which was quietly settled out of court, as well as McGuire v. N'Sync (2000) which was dropped by the Plaintiff. Listen to the words the Plaintiff's lawyers use in their filings to the court. After, I'll give you the rest of the class to work on your case study project...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.
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.
A Block Criminology 12 - Today we'll finish watching the Warner Brothers cartoons that we started
yesterday in class and wrap up our discussion on violence by reviewing the question:
Where does violence come from? We'll look at personal traits, ineffective
families, evolutionary factors, exposure to violence, cultural values, substance
abuse, and firearm availability. 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). If there's time I'd like to talk about
multiple homicides (mass and serial murder) and motives for killing other human
beings
B Block Social Studies 10 - Today we'll continue with our 'Ole Bill Coot storyboarding / cartoon assignment.
The due date for this assignment is this Friday (December 13th). You should use the
webpages from Tuesday's blog entry as well as your textbook for
information to help. Don't forget there needs to be swashbucklin', claim
jumpin', horse wrastlin', saloon drinkin', bar fightin', gun slingin', ladies
dancin', and rootin tootin old timey western action in your cartoon. Here's an
example of a western themed storyboard from the Advanced Computing Center of Arts and Design
at the OSU.
No comments:
Post a Comment