1 Shannons physician gives her some pain medication and tell

1. Shannon’s physician gives her some pain medication and tells her not to drive after taking the medication because it induces drowsiness. In spite of the doctor’s warning, Shannon decides to drive to the store while on the medication. Because she is extremely drowsy, due to the medication, she fails to stop at a red traffic light and crashes into another vehicle causing severe injury to the other driver.

Is Shannon liable for the tort of Negligence? Within your answer please define Tort and define and describe the four (4) elements of a Negligence cause of action (lawsuit).

2. Precise Engineering Corporation has a contract with Quik Mart Stores to provide customized software for Quik’s inventory control system. Retail Outlets, Inc, Quik’s competitor, induces Sam, a Precise subcontractor who is writing code for the Quik software, to delay delivery of the code for one week. As a result, Precise’s delivery of the software is delayed, and Quik sustains $500,000 in lost profits.

On what ground could Quik recover damages from Retail Outlets? Hint: Is this Wrongful Interference with a Business Relationship? What are the elements for the tort of Wrongful Interference?

Solution

1

Negligence can be define : when some one suffers and injury because of another failure to love up to a required duty of care

The 4 elements of a negligence cause action are:

Shannon was under the influence of medication, she was informed by the physician that the medication woud make her drowsy and not to drive but she drove anyways. This is complete negligence because she did not live up to her duty of care which is not to drive while on the medication as her doctor informed her.

2

Tort law recognizes that some acts are wrong because they cause injuries to others.

Quick can file a suit agains Rtail outlet based on wrongful interference with a contractual relationship

Quick needs to provide the following: a valid enforceable contract between themselves and Precise Engineering. Quick needs to prove that Retail outlet had knowledge of this contract between Quick and Precise. and Quick has to provide that Retail outlet intentionally caused either of the 2 parties to break the contract (according to the case Sam was incuded by Retail Outlet to delay the delivery of the product to Quick. Sam needs to confess on what he did