A Block Criminology 12 - Today we'll be in the library where I'd like you to do two things: 1. finish any missing blog entries that you have yet to complete for assessment...a Reminder that the blog topics are:
Blog # 5 Sexual Assault & Hypermasculinity
Blog # 4 Serial and Mass Murder (Olson and Lepine)
Blog # 3 Short & Long term Impacts of Crime Victims
Blog # 2 Drug Crime Trends and Rates for BC
Blog # 1 Personal Theory of Crime
or 2. finish working on the following questions:
Identify and explain the causes for sexual assault- Despite cultural awareness and various initiatives in schools and in the media, hate crimes continue to happen in significant numbers in Canada. Discuss the types of hate crimes most prevalent in Canada and the current responses to them.
- Governments have tried numerous responses to terrorism. Discuss some of these responses.
- It is unlikely that the threat of punishment can deter robbery; most robbers refuse to think about apprehension and punishment. Wright and Decker suggest that eliminating cash and relying on debit and credit cards may be the most productive method to reduce the incidence of robbery. Although this seems far-fetched, society is becoming progressively more cashless; it is now possible to buy both gas and groceries with credit cards. Would a cashless society end the threat of robbery, or would innovative robbers find new targets?
B & D Blocks Social Studies 10 - This past week, we've looked at the crazy stupid idea of building a railway from coast to coast (A Mari Usque ad Mare). You looked at Andrew Onderdonk and the railway through BC, John A. Macdonald's "National Policy" and his connection between Sir Hugh Allan's Pacific Railway Company and the Pacific Scandal leading to Macdonald's defeat in 1873. You looked at George Stephen & Donald A. Smith's Pacific Railway Company which hired William Van Horne and Andrew Onderdonk to build the railway. Today I'll have you finish your work on questions 1, 2, 3, 4 and 6 from page 202 of the Horizons text.C Block Law 12 - Today I have the library booked for you to continue your work on the major civil law project that is due in just over three weeks. Including today you have ten library blocks to finish this assignment...no pressure really. And don't forget if you're choosing to do three cases with a video for your law firm...you "Better call Saul"
For your 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 guest (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 guest) 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.
FYI:
Worksafe BC The basics of making a claim
Worksafe BC What you need to know about benefits and lawsuits for injury, death, or disease in the workplace
Worksafe BC Critical Incident Response
Worksafe BC Workers compensation and Lawsuit basics
No comments:
Post a Comment