9:15 - 11:50 B Block Human Geography
12:30 - 3:05 C Block Legal Studies
B Block Human Geography - Today more help for the SimCity Buildit project...
For the Key Issue, "Why Do Services Cluster Downtown"? consider what is "downtown"... generally it is the best-known and the most visually distinctive area of most cities. It is usually one of the oldest districts in a city, often the site of the original settlement. The central business district (CBD) is the core of the city where many services cluster. Public, Business and Commercial services are attracted to the CBD because of its accessibility and density. Try to examine North American and non North American downtown cores.
For the key question "Where Are People Distributed Within Urban Areas"? Look at three North American models of urban development: The concentric zone model; the sector model; and the multiple nuclei model. You will need to annotate information about the three models...so use the video below to help
You should also look at the differences between North American, European and Latin American city development.
For the key question "Where Are People Distributed Within Urban Areas"? Look at three North American models of urban development: The concentric zone model; the sector model; and the multiple nuclei model. You will need to annotate information about the three models...so use the video below to help
You should also look at the differences between North American, European and Latin American city development.
For Latin American city models, the "elite spine" and squatter settlements check out:
For the Key Issue "Why Are Urban Areas Expanding"? Try to understand urban areas, census metropolitan areas, annexation, sub-urbanization, sprawl, smart growth and transportation into and out of city cores.
- Discuss what goes into planning and maintaining a city using geographic inquiry processes and skills to ask questions; gather, interpret, and analyze data and ideas; and communicate findings and decisions
- Draw conclusions about the variation and distribution of geographic phenomena over time and space through identifying basic city services and features (such as emergency services, transportation, and education), along with areas of zoning and the services that comprise city infrastructure (commercial, residential, and industrial)
- Evaluate how particular geographic actions or events influence human practices or outcomes through describing the consequences of decisions regarding various city functions (taxes, budget, services, etc.)
- Assess the significance of places by identifying the physical and/or human features that characterize them through explaining the importance of city location, placement of city features, and proportions in zoning
- Identify and assess how human and environmental factors and events influence each other in order to identify and build features that best represent successful city design.
Remember I need your presentation by Friday so use your time wisely.
C Block Legal Studies - First the class then the Learning Commons. 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.
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.
Some help regarding the baseball case can be found at
City of Vancouver Standards of Maintenance By Law (look at section 5 Structural Conditions).
Some help regarding the amusement park and ski resort cases can be found at
No comments:
Post a Comment