9:15 - 11:50 B Block Legal Studies
12:30 - 3:05 C Block Social and Environmental Sciences
B Block Legal Studies - Today we'll start with negligence.
This is an unintentional or an intentional civil wrong (tort). Negligence is the most common civil tort (inattention, carelessness, and the possibility of harm) and there are 4 components to the “Test for Negligence:
1. Did you have a responsibility to someone?
2. Did you fail in your responsibility-How?
3. Did you cause them harm?
4. Did the suffer an actual loss?
Conduct is negligent if it creates an objectively unreasonable risk of harm.
To avoid liability, a person must exercise the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances.
The measure of what is reasonable depends on the facts of each case, including
• the likelihood of a known or foreseeable harm,
• the gravity of that harm, and
• the burden or cost which would be incurred to prevent the injury.
In addition, one may look to external indicators of reasonable conduct
• such as custom,
• industry practice, and
• statutory or regulatory standards
After we have the library / learning commons booked for the morning to work on our civil law activity.
This is an unintentional or an intentional civil wrong (tort). Negligence is the most common civil tort (inattention, carelessness, and the possibility of harm) and there are 4 components to the “Test for Negligence:
- Duty of Care – The Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant had the legal obligation not to cause harm on their property (The “neighbour principle” – you have a responsibility to take reasonable care for the safety of anyone who may be harmed by your actions)
- Breach in the Duty of Care (Standard of Care) – The Plaintiff must prove that the Defendant did not meet the expected standard of care owed to them (based on the “Reasonable Person Principle” – concept of “Foreseeability”)
- Causation – Once the Plaintiff has proven the Defendant didn’t meet the Standard of Care there needs to be a determination of “direct causality” (“but for…” principle – but for the actions of the Defendant the Plaintiff would not have been harmed – sometimes the acts speak for themselves “Res Ipsa Loquitor”).
- Actual Harm/Loss – The Plaintiff must prove that real damages occurred to them as a result of the Defendant’s negligent acts
1. Did you have a responsibility to someone?
2. Did you fail in your responsibility-How?
3. Did you cause them harm?
4. Did the suffer an actual loss?
Conduct is negligent if it creates an objectively unreasonable risk of harm.
To avoid liability, a person must exercise the standard of care that would be expected of an ordinary, reasonable and prudent person in the same circumstances.
The measure of what is reasonable depends on the facts of each case, including
• the likelihood of a known or foreseeable harm,
• the gravity of that harm, and
• the burden or cost which would be incurred to prevent the injury.
In addition, one may look to external indicators of reasonable conduct
• such as custom,
• industry practice, and
• statutory or regulatory standards
After we have the library / learning commons booked for the morning to work on our civil law activity.
C Block Social and Environmental Sciences -We'll start with Benton and Young in 115. Our focus this week, besides our project, is on the potential for melding worldviews into something environmentally sustainable, Doug Herman from Smithsonian calls it Indigeneity
After these two TED talks we'll try to see how modern science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge can be identified in Indigeneity. Check out the article Walking Together: First Nations, Métis and Inuit Perspectives in Curriculum Worldview. Tomorrow more on TEK. Lastly we'll work on our interview assignment / project.
Indigeneity is a way of being in the world: being indigenous to a place means having a depth of knowledge, understanding and connection to that place. Indigeneity also includes a sense of stewardship and responsibility for managing that place and working respectfully with its non-human inhabitants.We'll re-examine the differences between the "Western" worldview (hailing from philosophers in the Enlightenment such as Locke, Voltaire, Rousseau, Kant and Descartes) where understanding and using science, rather than religion, to explain natural phenomena became a staple of western society and an "Indigenous" worldview which focuses on connections between all things, including the visible physical world and the invisible spiritual world, seeing time as always in a cycle of renewal that links past and present and future. It is important to recognize that "Western" and "Indigenous" are blanket terms and there was/is many points of view held by European people and Indigenous populations. You do know, however, that Western linear and scientific belief came to view Indigenous circular and spiritual belief as inferior and therefore ignored the traditional knowledge gained through millennia of living with the land. From Indigenous Corporate Training Inc.,
The root of the difference between the worldviews is that they generally subscribe to opposite approaches to knowledge, connectedness, and science. Indigenous cultures focus on a holistic understanding of the whole that emerged from the millennium of their existence and experiences. Traditional Western worldviews tend to be more concerned with science and concentrate on compartmentalized knowledge and then focus on understanding the bigger, related picture.Today we'll watch some TED, starting with Wade Davis and Jacinta Koolmatrie...
After these two TED talks we'll try to see how modern science and Traditional Ecological Knowledge can be identified in Indigeneity. Check out the article Walking Together: First Nations, Métis and Inuit Perspectives in Curriculum Worldview. Tomorrow more on TEK. Lastly we'll work on our interview assignment / project.
No comments:
Post a Comment