The plaintiff, a compulsive shopper, had crammed her apartment with so many purchases that it was difficult to walk through the unit. This hazardous state of affairs was discovered when the unit flooded. The managers told the plaintiff she would have to move her belongings, and they assisted her in removing items to storage. After an unidentified third party broke in and stole some property, the plaintiff commenced an action as against the managers of the apartment complex. Name the tort that may be applicable in this fact scenario. What will the plaintiff need to establish? In your opinion, do you think the plaintiff has a good cause of action? Why or why not? Roper v. Gosling, 2002 ABCA 71 (CanLII) Questions: Indicate what arguments can be raised in his defence and what factors the courts will take into consideration in determining liability. Would it make any difference to your answer if the Court determined as a finding of fact that although a reasonable person would have been aware that Roper's ability to drive was impaired, Gosling wasn't in fact aware of this when she got into the vehicle with him?  

Answer rating: 100% (QA)

The tort that may be applicable in this scenario is premises liability or negligence The plaintiff would need to establish that the managers of the ap... View the full answer