9:15 - 11:50 B Block Human Geography
12:30 - 3:05 C Block Legal Studies
B Block Human Geography - Today we'll look the the key question "Why Do People Preserve Local Languages?" This is the basis of your current project in Human Geography. We'll look at multilingual states and linguistic diversity in Switzerland, Belgium, Nigeria and here in Canada. We'll try to examine of Celtic languages like Welsh, Irish, Breton, Scottish, and Cornish are being preserved along with Aboriginal languages (in Both Australia and Canada) and Maori (in New Zealand). Finally we'll look at English as a lingua franca and examine pidgin, Fringlish, Spanglish and Denglish.
You'll have the remainder of the block to finish your Language package (or your religion one which is past due)
C 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:
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 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
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.
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 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:
- 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
So, what Defenses are there for Negligence?
The best defense is no duty of care (in other words you did not have a responsibility to the plaintiff). Another defense is that the Defendant actually met the Standard of Care expected (you acted in a manner that was responsible and brought no harm to the plaintiff). Other defenses include no actual loss or harm to the Plaintiff (although you may have been responsible for negligence, the plaintiff experienced no real harm to them) and…
1. Contributory Negligence – if the Plaintiff and Defendant are both negligent then damages can be split between them. In this the Defendant must establish that the Plaintiff was partially at fault
2. Voluntary Assumption of Risk – This implies that you accept factors that may lead to harm or injury. This means you assume risk. The Defendant must prove that the Plaintiff clearly knew the risk involved in their actions and chose to assume it. Waivers – are not always enforceable The Defendant must establish that the Plaintiff made a conscious decision to sign the waiver and knew what it implied.
You have the rest of the afternoon in the learning commons to work on your project (including your law firm commercial if you choose that option).
No comments:
Post a Comment