Answered You can hire a professional tutor to get the answer.
Need an argumentative essay on British legal system. Needs to be 10 pages. Please no plagiarism.The situation in question states that Mike was travelling on the road perpendicular to Betty and continu
Need an argumentative essay on British legal system. Needs to be 10 pages. Please no plagiarism.
The situation in question states that Mike was travelling 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 & 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.
Whether Mike and Sue are in breach of the duty of care owed to Betty & Anne requires consideration of the magnitude of risk, the seriousness of the harm suffered, the utility of the defendant's conduct and any precautions, which might have been taken guard against the risk. Betty does not take legal action against Mike trusting on Julian's advice. Julian is a corporate solicitor who solely deals with mergers and acquisitions. Betty asked him for legal advice in relation to her accident when Julian had came around to visit her. However Betty mentions her situation to another solicitor who tells her she could have received a sizeable amount in damages if she had gone ahead with a claim against Mike timeously. In such condition Betty need to consider Julian's liability and Anne may sue against Mike for damages personal injury claims, medical and other expenses, lose of expectation or and lose of earning.
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 Council3, 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 Mertonlondon Borough Council4 and the two-part test, preferring instead a new three-part test suggested by Lords Keith, Oliver and Bridge in Caparo v Dickman5]. In order to impose liability on the employers, Betty has to established foresight, proximity and fairness and it is the current test.
In Caparo industries v Dickman [1990], the shareholders in a company bought more shares and then made a successful takeover bid for the company after studying the audited accounts prepared by the defendants. They later regretted the move and sued the auditors claiming that they had relied on accounts,
