Respuesta :
Both Baker and Carl are liable. Baker and Carl were each tailgating in front of Abel, this shows that they were both negligent and since Abel has proved that the damage resulted from their negligence, each is liable, meaning Baker and Carl are liable for the damages.
Both Baker and Carl are liable.
Further Explanation:
Why both are liable:
Baker and Carl were each closely following before Abel, this demonstrates they were both careless and since Abel has demonstrated that the harm come about because of their carelessness, each is subject, which means Baker and Carl are obligated for the harms.
Negligence:
An duty to comply with a standard of consideration, the rupture of which is the real and proximate reason for offended party's harms .
Duty:
By and large there is an obligation to every predictable offended party to go about as a sensible, judicious individual the situation being what it is. Here, Abel is required to go about as a sensible, judicious conveyance individual driving in a private neighbourhood. He ought to know about left vehicles and the likelihood of hitting them. He has an obligation to drive cautiously. Predictable Plaintiff Since Able lives in the area and had his vehicle left there, he is a predictable offended party.
Breach:
An unjustified inability to satisfy the standard of consideration. Here, he struck Able's left vehicle. The inquiry is whether he was careless and bombed in his obligation. Carelessness Per Se If a resolution has a punishment for its infringement and prohibits.
Causation:
Real Cause is "However for" Able speeding, Able's vehicle would not have been harmed how and when it was.
Subject: business
Level: High School
Keywords: Why both are liable, Negligence, Duty, Breach, Causation.
Learn more about evolution on:
https://brainly.com/question/8013823
https://brainly.com/question/9019904