Reparation Law and Evidence

The situation in question states that Mike was traveling on the road perpendicular to Betty and continues to go through the red light as Betty starts to go and the resulting consequence. It needs to be considered whether a duty of care is owed or whether there is a breach of duty on Mike’s part. Assuming that the injuries to Anne and Betty bare caused by Mike’s negligence and that harm is not too remote, Mike will be liable in damages to both Anne &amp. Betty and if Betty can give evidence then Betty being able to recover damages under the Law Reform (Miscellaneous Provisions) Act 1934 and Fatal Accidents Act 1976, respectively. Whether Betty has any contributory negligence or not needs to be ascertained. To impose liability upon Mike there is a need to justify his negligence.
It is established that all road users owe a duty of care to other road users (Nettleship v Weston2). It follows that Mike and Sue have a potential duty to Betty and Anne in respect of the harm both suffer. That harm, respectively personal injury and property damage suffered by Betty and personal injury suffered by Anne, both of which appear to be foreseeable consequences of a road traffic accident.&nbsp.To impose liability or take reasonable steps against Julian cases need to be examined which indicated whether Julian owes any duty towards Betty. In Murphy v Brentwood District Council, the House of Lords held that the council was not liable on the basis that the council could not owe a greater duty of care to the claimant than the builder. In doing so the court also overruled Anns v Merton London Borough Council and the two-part test, preferring instead a new three-part test suggested by Lords Keith, Oliver, and Bridge in Caparo v Dickman ].