This case is more in favor of BuGusa than it is for Randy. For instance, a tort can only be justified if the tortfeasor was found guilty of causing the damages on the plaintiff. However, this scenario involves violation of the traffic rule by Randy, who, in that mood hit by the van coming from behind when he tries to make a left turn from the road without giving way.
Notably, there is a tort of negligence involved in this case. This is evident when Brian speeds and hits Randy’s car from behind unintentionally because Randy did not give way. It is important to consider in this scenario is that whether or not randy was on the wrong, his car suffered damages, which ought to be compensated.
BuGusa can tactically win the case on the basis that there was no tort involved because the one who suffered damages had violated to traffic law for that scenario. in other words, randy is not entitled to compensation of any kind. In fact, it is him who was supposed to compensate BuGusa if at all their van had suffered damages after hitting Randy’s car. Therefore, in a nutshell, BuGusa for any damages on Randy’s car because Randy was the one on the wrong and his refusal to give way made Brian to cause the accident.