HELLO!

Welcome to the Schulich School of Law! Were excited to have you with us. Heres what our time together looks like:
THURSDAY, MARCH 6
Noon 1 pm 1 1:30 pm 1:30 2:45 pm Registration & lunch Deans welcome Small group case study & discussion

Health Law Case Study Professor Michael Hadskis

Mrs. Malette was rushed, unconscious, by ambulance to the emergency department of an Ontario hospital. She had been in a serious motor vehicle accident. On arrival at the hospital, she was examined by Dr. Shulman, who determined that Mrs. Malette had a severe head injury and was bleeding profusely. Having concluded that she needed blood transfusions to save her life, Dr. Shulman administered these transfusions despite being aware of a card in Mrs. Malettes purse that identified her as a Jehovahs Witness and stated that she was not to be given blood or blood products under any circumstances. The card was signed by Mrs. Malette, but it was not dated or witnessed. The blood transfusions provided by Dr. Shulman saved Mrs. Malettes life. Mrs. Malette subsequently sued Dr. Shulman alleging that he had committed the tort of battery by administering these transfusions. The Ontario Court of Appeal agreed with Mrs. Malette and awarded her $20,000 in damages. Come to the health law session for a discussion about whether this was a just outcome. Please read the case of Malette v Shulman prior to the session - Rose Godfrey will make sure you receive an electronic copy of this case.

Understanding the Law of Negligence Professor David Blaikie

[The law of negligence] does not require the wisdom of Solomon. All it requires is that people act reasonably in the circumstances. Justice John Major, Supreme Court of Canada, Stewart v Pettie (1995) [The reasonable person] is a mythical creature of the law whose conduct is the standard by which the Courts measure the conduct of all other persons and find it proper or improper in particular circumstances as they may exist from time to time. He is not an extraordinary or unusual creature; he is not superhuman; he is not required to display the highest skill of which anyone is capable... He is a person of normal intelligence who makes prudence a guide to his conduct.

Justice Robert Laidlaw, Ontario Court of Appeal, Arland and Arland v Taylor (1955) 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. Justice John Major, Supreme Court of Canada, Ryan v Victoria (City) (1999)

The essence of negligence is the requirement to take reasonable care in the circumstances. Two key issues need to be understood in order to understand the law of negligence: 1) What does it mean to take reasonable care, to act reasonably in the circumstances? 2) How do courts determine/decide what is reasonable in the circumstances?

The Law of Negligence Professor Phillip Saunders

[The law of negligence] does not require the wisdom of Solomon. All it requires is that people act reasonably in the circumstances. Justice John Major, Supreme Court of Canada, Stewart v Pettie (1995) 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. Justice John Major, Supreme Court of Canada, Ryan v Victoria (City) (1999)

The notion of a reasonable person one who exercises a standard of care that is reasonable in the circumstances is at the heart of the law of negligence. Please read the edited version of the decision of the Supreme Court of Canada in Stewart v Pettie (as provided), and think about how the courts go about deciding what is a reasonable person, and conduct which is reasonable in the circumstances.

2:45 3 pm Break 3 4 pm Ask us anything student Q&A panel 4 pm onwards Take a campus tour Book a one-on-one career development meeting Student committee/society fair 4:30 6:30 pm Wickwire Lecture: Proactive Regulation of Lawyers - Proof and Possibilities w/ Professor Susan Fortney, Maurice A Deane School of Law, Hofstra University Evening Enjoy dinner out with current students & sample law school nightlife at Domus

FRIDAY, MARCH 7
10:30 11 am 11am 12 pm Breakfast at the law school Pick-a-lecture from award-winning profs

The Role of Law in Responding to Social Problems: Cyberbullying as a Case Study Professor Wayne MacKay "Why Tax Law Matters" Professor Geoffrey Loomer 12 - 1:30 pm Lunch & regional meet-ups 1:30 pm Final thoughts Afternoon O-Week remixed! Evening Your time to explore & travel!