9:15 - 11:50 A Block Physical Geography
12:30 - 3:05 D Block Legal Studies
A Block Physical Geography - Today we'll continue our look at severe weather focusing on mesoscale convective complexes and tornadoes. I'll show you some footage of a tornado captured on video by a Kansas television crew. This footage was actually detrimental to tornado safety as most people who saw it
assumed that a highway overpass provides shelter and safety. This proved deadly with the May 3, 1999 Moore Oklahoma F5 tornado.
So, why is it dangerous to hide under an overpass when a tornado strikes? Look at the rotation of the funnel on this tornado...
From 2013 a storm chasing team inside the Tornado Intercept Vehicle (TIV2) again consider rotational speed...
So, why is it dangerous to hide under an overpass when a tornado strikes? Look at the rotation of the funnel on this tornado...
From 2013 a storm chasing team inside the Tornado Intercept Vehicle (TIV2) again consider rotational speed...
Lastly, we'll watch a really good video of the El Reno Oklahoma EF3 Tornado of 2013.
Oklahoma typically experiences around 60 tornadoes a year, as it is part of Tornado Alley. Most tornadoes, about 77 percent, don’t cause death or widespread damage however some can spin up to create something spectacularly dangerous. The El Reno tornado, that struck central Oklahoma, measured 4.2 kilometers (2.6 miles) wide at its base and killed 18 people including veteran tornado researchers and storm chasers Tim and Paul Samaras and Carl Young (National Geographic did an excellent piece on Tim Samaras called "The Last Chase")
A really good article on the El Reno Tornado and the storm chasers around it can be found at Outside magazine online When the Luck Ran Out in El Reno
Don't forget questions:
NWS Jetstream Tornadoes
Weather underground Supercells
How Mesocyclones Work
Weather Network Tornado Alley
CBC What is Tornado Alley
NOAA Tornado Alley
A really good descriptive video from the National Weather Service in Norman, Oklahoma. It's not gripping but it is detailed in tornado genesis and development
...and because I'm a nerd...do you know that chasers have their own vocab? Check out the article Do you speak storm-chasing? from TED. Or the National Weather Service Weather Glossary for Storm Spotters
A really good article on the El Reno Tornado and the storm chasers around it can be found at Outside magazine online When the Luck Ran Out in El Reno
Don't forget questions:
- Evaluate the pattern of tornado activity in Canada and the United States. Where is Tornado Alley? What generalizations can you make about the distribution and timing of tornadoes? What happened in 2003?
- Describe the formation process of a mesocyclone. How is this development associated with that of a tornado?
NWS Jetstream Tornadoes
Weather underground Supercells
How Mesocyclones Work
Weather Network Tornado Alley
CBC What is Tornado Alley
NOAA Tornado Alley
A really good descriptive video from the National Weather Service in Norman, Oklahoma. It's not gripping but it is detailed in tornado genesis and development
...and because I'm a nerd...do you know that chasers have their own vocab? Check out the article Do you speak storm-chasing? from TED. Or the National Weather Service Weather Glossary for Storm Spotters
D Block Legal Studies - Remember, your civil law project involves letters to potential clients. You can find tips on plain language legal writing from the Canadian Bar Association. Plain language legal writing refers to legal writing that is well thought-out, well organized, and understandable to the client without interpretation: the language is clear, the legal concepts are explained and the technical terms are defined.
For your Information, the professional code of conduct (ethics) for the BC Law Society states, it is a lawyer’s duty to:
Why is Personal Injury/Tort Law important? Seinfeld mocked it. Letterman ranked it in his top ten list. And more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. Everyone knows the McDonald’s coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Take a look below to see what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s.
In the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994), 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled McDonald’s coffee in her lap, which resulted in second- and third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, groin, and genitals. The burns were severe enough to require skin grafts. Liebeck attempted to have McDonald’s pay her $20,000 medical bills as indemnity for the incident. McDonald’s refused, and Liebeck sued. During the case’s discovery process, internal documents from McDonald’s revealed that the company had received hundreds of similar complaints from customers claiming that McDonald’s coffee caused severe burns. At trial, this led the jury to find that McDonald’s knew their product was dangerous and injuring their customers and that the company had done nothing to correct the problem. The jury decided on $200,000 in compensatory damages, but attributed 20 percent of the fault to Liebeck, reducing her compensation to $160,000. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which, at the time, represented two days’ of McDonald’s coffee sales revenue. The judge later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The case is often criticized for the very high amount of damages the jury awarded. Your textbook states: Many Canadians regard civil suits like Stella Liebeck’s as frivolous (silly or wasteful). What do you think?
Consider this story...An Ohio man, Arnold Black, a 48-year-old black man from Maple Heights, sued East Cleveland after he was stopped by police in 2012 for suspected drug activity, handcuffed, left locked in a closet for four days without food, water or access to a bathroom and beaten so severely that he suffered memory loss and required brain surgery was awarded $22 million in court.
Or this story where a B.C. judge has awarded a disabled 16-year-old more than $5.2 million in damages after finding her cerebral palsy was the result of the failures of a nurse and doctor involved in her delivery.
For your project, there are a few things you should know about helping people in distress or need:
Lowering the Standard of Care
A. Emergency
1) The Emergency Medical Aid Act
2. If, in respect of a person who is ill, injured or unconscious as the result of an accident or other emergency,
(a) a physician, registered health discipline member, or registered nurse voluntarily and without expectation of compensation or reward renders emergency medical services or first aid assistance and the services or assistance are not rendered at a hospital or other place having adequate medical facilities and equipment, or
(b) a person other than a person mentioned in clause (a) voluntarily renders emergency first aid assistance and that assistance is rendered at the immediate scene of the accident or emergency, the physician, registered health discipline member, registered nurse or other person is not liable for damages for injuries to or the death of that person alleged to have been caused by an act or omission on his part in rendering the medical services or first aid assistance, unless it is established that the injuries or death were caused by gross negligence on his part.
NOTE: This does not provide immunity but lowers the standard of care and protects rescuers up to gross negligence
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:
Spraggs & Co. Should I Claim My Work Injury with WorkSafeBC or in a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
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
For your Information, the professional code of conduct (ethics) for the BC Law Society states, it is a lawyer’s duty to:
- promote the interests of the state
- serve the cause of justice
- maintain the authority and dignity of the courts
- be faithful to clients
- be candid and courteous in relations with other lawyers
- demonstrate personal integrity.
Why is Personal Injury/Tort Law important? Seinfeld mocked it. Letterman ranked it in his top ten list. And more than fifteen years later, its infamy continues. Everyone knows the McDonald’s coffee case. It has been routinely cited as an example of how citizens have taken advantage of America’s legal system, but is that a fair rendition of the facts? Take a look below to see what really happened to Stella Liebeck, the Albuquerque woman who spilled coffee on herself and sued McDonald’s.
In the case of Liebeck v. McDonald’s Restaurants (1994), 79-year-old Stella Liebeck spilled McDonald’s coffee in her lap, which resulted in second- and third-degree burns on her thighs, buttocks, groin, and genitals. The burns were severe enough to require skin grafts. Liebeck attempted to have McDonald’s pay her $20,000 medical bills as indemnity for the incident. McDonald’s refused, and Liebeck sued. During the case’s discovery process, internal documents from McDonald’s revealed that the company had received hundreds of similar complaints from customers claiming that McDonald’s coffee caused severe burns. At trial, this led the jury to find that McDonald’s knew their product was dangerous and injuring their customers and that the company had done nothing to correct the problem. The jury decided on $200,000 in compensatory damages, but attributed 20 percent of the fault to Liebeck, reducing her compensation to $160,000. The jury also awarded Liebeck $2.7 million in punitive damages, which, at the time, represented two days’ of McDonald’s coffee sales revenue. The judge later reduced the punitive damages to $480,000. The case is often criticized for the very high amount of damages the jury awarded. Your textbook states: Many Canadians regard civil suits like Stella Liebeck’s as frivolous (silly or wasteful). What do you think?
Consider this story...An Ohio man, Arnold Black, a 48-year-old black man from Maple Heights, sued East Cleveland after he was stopped by police in 2012 for suspected drug activity, handcuffed, left locked in a closet for four days without food, water or access to a bathroom and beaten so severely that he suffered memory loss and required brain surgery was awarded $22 million in court.
Or this story where a B.C. judge has awarded a disabled 16-year-old more than $5.2 million in damages after finding her cerebral palsy was the result of the failures of a nurse and doctor involved in her delivery.
For your project, there are a few things you should know about helping people in distress or need:
Lowering the Standard of Care
A. Emergency
1) The Emergency Medical Aid Act
2. If, in respect of a person who is ill, injured or unconscious as the result of an accident or other emergency,
(a) a physician, registered health discipline member, or registered nurse voluntarily and without expectation of compensation or reward renders emergency medical services or first aid assistance and the services or assistance are not rendered at a hospital or other place having adequate medical facilities and equipment, or
(b) a person other than a person mentioned in clause (a) voluntarily renders emergency first aid assistance and that assistance is rendered at the immediate scene of the accident or emergency, the physician, registered health discipline member, registered nurse or other person is not liable for damages for injuries to or the death of that person alleged to have been caused by an act or omission on his part in rendering the medical services or first aid assistance, unless it is established that the injuries or death were caused by gross negligence on his part.
NOTE: This does not provide immunity but lowers the standard of care and protects rescuers up to gross negligence
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:
Spraggs & Co. Should I Claim My Work Injury with WorkSafeBC or in a Personal Injury Lawsuit?
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