C Block Human Geography - Today, we'll look at the Key Issue "Where Are States Distributed? “Old School” geography often required you to memorize countries and their capitals. Human geographers now emphasize a thematic approach. We are concerned with the location of activities in the world, the reasons for spatial distributions, and the significance of those arrangements. Despite this change in emphasis, you still need to know the locations of countries. Without such knowledge, you lack a basic frame of reference—knowing where things are. From the 90's (including countries that don't exist anymore):
We'll take a brief look at the United Nations
And, your questions today:
- When was the United Nations established? By whom?
- Identify the reason for which membership in the UN grew significantly in each of the following periods on the chart.
- Who are the five permanent members of the Security Council?
- Identify some of the problems the UN faces as it attempts to operate and influence world affairs.
D Block Physical Geography - This is me...sad, because today I lose you to the annual Awards Celebration
A Block Criminology - Today we'll do some prep work before our Casey Anthony true crime media analysis. If Casey Anthony was the most hated mom in America the most hated husband in America was Scott Peterson (who was convicted of murdering his wife, Laci, and unborn child in 2004). A&E TV did a retrospective six part series called The Murder of Laci Peterson and you can stream the six episodes on the link by signing in to your Telus, Shaw or Bell service provider. From A&E
The mystery of Laci Peterson’s disappearance on Christmas Eve 2002 captivated the nation. Eight months pregnant, she vanished without a trace. Her body and that of her unborn child, Conner, appeared four months later on the shores of the San Francisco Bay causing a media frenzy on both a local and national level. To this day, no one knows exactly when, where or how she died, only that her husband Scott Peterson was convicted of murder and sentenced to death, despite the absence of DNA evidence or eyewitness testimony. Scott Peterson’s conviction was less a tribute to the efficacy of the legal system than it was a case study for the overwhelming power of modern media to deliver the facts of news in a way that creates irresistible tabloid fodder.
Today we'll watch part 2 of the retrospective "The Murder of Laci Peterson". Pay special attention to Nancy Grace and her explanation of why she does what she does. This case was the bridge between OJ Simpson and Casey Anthony. I mean who doesn't like a good witch hunt in today's society...really? 😳
B Block Legal Studies - 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.
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
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
SAFETY STANDARDS ACT [SBC 2003] CHAPTER 39 and at Safety Standards Act
SAFETY STANDARDS GENERAL REGULATION.
SAFETY STANDARDS GENERAL REGULATION.
Remember, your civil law project involves letters to potential clients. 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.
Some of you asked about creating letterheads in Microsoft Word...
I'll remind you that you have the option of completing a video commercial for your law firm much like:
Tomorrow is Flex. Come get help if you need it.
Today's Fit...
No comments:
Post a Comment