1. The facts (5 marks)

1. The issue(s) (5 marks)

1. The court's decision (1 mark)

1. The court's reasoning supporting the decision (3 marks)

1. Conclusion: Do you agree with the outcome? Why or why not? Justify your answer. (6 marks)
   1. Agreeot (1 mark)
   2. Why or why not (2 marks)
   3. Your own personal justification/rationale expanding on why or why not (3 marks)

CASE STUDY (2:: marks) Sm itts v. Arian Resorts The owner of a British Columbia resort was liable when Smitts, who had a blood- alcohol level close to ve times the legal limit, fell to his death from a second-storey door that had no balcony. The defendant had specifically warned the Smitts' party to keep the balcony door looked and keep the existing table in front of it. Nevertheless. the court held that it was foreseeable that the guests would become intoxicated and open the door for ventilation. Consequently, the court ruled that by failing to barricade the door, the defendant breached his obligation to make the premises reasonably safe. Although the defendant was only liable for 35% of Smitts's losses, this still amounted to over $250,000