D Block Law 9/10 - Today we'll finish up our fingerprint graphs from yesterday's activity. Remember you need to count how many Loops, Arches and Whorls there are for all the students in the class for the Thumb, Index, Middle Ring and Pinky fingers. This should be a bar graph comparing potentially 15 sets of data. After you've finished the class fingerprint graph you may continue working on the Clue Us In crime scene reconstruction project. You will have library time next week for this project.
C & A Blocks Social Studies 10 - George Stanley wrote in The Canadians, "Bonds of steel as well as of sentiment were needed to hold the new Confederation together. Without railways there would be and could be no Canada."
“The opening by us first of a Northern Pacific Railroad seals the destiny of the British possessions west of the ninety-first meridian. They will become so Americanized in interests and feelings that they will be in effect severed from the new Dominion, and the question of their annexation will be but a question of time” 1869 United States Senate Committee Report
“The United States government are resolved to do all that they can, short of war, to get possession of the western territory, and we must take immediate and vigorous steps to counteract them. One of the first things to be done is to show unmistakably our resolve to build the Pacific Railway” Sir John A Macdonald (1875)
Today is a planning day for your next project. You are going to be making a children's story book about the building of the Canadian Pacific Railway from Toronto to Vancouver. Since the book is targeted for 5 to 9 year old children you'll need to choose your words carefully and have age appropriate language. 5 to 9 year old children are, however, not dumb and you are trying to tell a story of the challenges involved in building the railway along with the characters who did it. You will need to include:
- the building of the railway in three locations (northern Ontario, the prairies, and through the mountains in B.C.);
- you'll need to show what passenger cars and locomotives looked like;
- you'll need to show what trestles and tunnels looked like;
- you'll need to identify the main characters (Smith, Macdonald, Van Horne, Flemming and Onderdonk);
- you'll need to show what it was like for workers (different conditions for "whites" and coolies);
- you'll need to show the last spike in Craigellachie and have a map of the railway.
Sir Sandford Fleming The Knight of Time
Railway Witnesses, Memory of a Nation
Revelstoke Railway Museum Photo Archive
The Canadian Encyclopedia - Building the Railway
The Kids site of Canadian Settlement - Chinese & the Railway
Vancouver Public Library - CPR History
BC Archives - CPR
Kamloops Art Gallery - Andrew Onderdonk & the CPR
Library & Archives Canada: Canada by Train
Library & Archives Canada: The Kid's site of Canadian Trains
Musee McCord Museum: CPR form sea to sea
Musee McCord Museum: Forging the National Dream
Canada Science and Technology Museum: Railways
Remember Tuesday-Wednesday-Thursday in the library for this next week and Friday Unit Test.
Nitro | Historica Canada
B Block Law 12 - Today we'll look at intentional torts focusing on trespass to property and trespass to person (assault and battery & false imprisonment) along with defences to these intentional torts (consent, self-defence, defence of a third party, defence of property, legal authority, and necessity). We'll also look at defamation of character and strict liability in civil law. This gets us to the end of the torts unit in Law 12 and then next week we'll begin our look at family law.
Duhaime Tort and Personal Law Dictionary
Saskatchewan Schools Law 30 Intentional Tort on line unit
Spark Notes on Intentional Torts
Personal Injury Intentional Tort website
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.
No comments:
Post a Comment