T3BE Week 9! Prescription Negligence and Breach of Contract
Added 2024-04-10 05:08:42 +0000 UTCAs usual, we've got last week's answers and this week's questions! Some fun and tricky ones...
Comments
Sadly that's true in a lot of workplaces, but it's also why strong unions are important. Through collective action we are able to rein in the worst employers and ensure that they follow industry best practices, agreed procedures, and legal requirements.
Congress- the opposite of PROgress
2024-04-29 19:12:02 +0000 UTCIn the US, profit is always placed above safety.
Jason Valasek
2024-04-29 18:49:59 +0000 UTC[Posted to Reddit] As a union rep in a safety-critical industry, I really don't like any of the answers, because there isn't enough information given to decide whether Olivia was actually negligent in carrying out her duties or whether she was set up to fail by a broken healthcare system that placed profit above safety. In other words, legal liability would depend on whether she delivered a reasonable standard of care, which in turn does depend on lots of factors including just how similar the packaging was, how many others had made similar mistakes in the past, and whether her employer made any process changes or gave Olivia any safety briefings to try to reduce the risk as low as reasonably practicable. Did she misread the label because she was drinking on the job or was it because she was working 16-hour days after her corporate employer chose stock buybacks instead of hiring a second pharmacist? In my industry (the UK railway), we use James Reason's "Swiss Cheese model of accident causation", which basically says that you have to assume that every human worker will inevitably make mistakes, so to prevent those mistakes from resulting in actual harm you have to design your safety management system to include multiple layers of defence that can be imagined as slices of Swiss Emmental cheese. Each individual slice has holes in it, but harm will only occur if the holes in all the layers line up so that the danger can pass all the way through. In the pharmacy example: the manufacturer's packaging is a slice, the working conditions are a slice, the reporting procedure for near-misses is a slice, effective supervision by management is a slice, initial and recurrent training is a slice, having a second person verify the pharmacist's work is a slice, and so on. The more slices you add to the system, the less likely it is that the holes will all line up to allow the danger through. For those reasons, I think that A, B, and D are all possible outcomes in the real world. If answer A said that Olivia would only be found negligent *if* she failed to exercise a reasonable standard of care then that would be my answer, but I don't think there's enough information given in the question to determine whether she did or not. I think we all can agree that C is stupid, though. [/Reddit] In Brandon's case, just like last week's strict liability question, I think it's best to just keep it simple and avoid overthinking it. Brandon had a very simple contract with Lucy, so the answer is equally simple. The contract said "don't share the song", not "don't share the song unless it's for personal reasons". Therefore A: Lucy breached the contract so Brandon gets an injunction to stop any further breaches. He probably also goes on to win a judgment for damages arising from the breach that already occurred, but that wasn't the question.
Congress- the opposite of PROgress
2024-04-12 03:51:48 +0000 UTCThe answer is C. The breach is established, so the question is testing whether he has an adequate remedy in the form of monetary damages. Exclusivity fits the bill; this can't be his signature song if everyone's playing it, even if he gets paid residuals. Thomas fell into the trap of fighting the hypo. An injunction could prevent Lucy from sharing the song again, and even an injunction based solely on the prior breach could bind another musician in active concert with Lucy.
Dr. Clerk
2024-04-11 22:39:18 +0000 UTCAll the containers look similar Olivia, that's why you have fucking pharmacists. A, and you're fired
Bald Weasels Scrotal Manscaping
2024-04-11 22:06:16 +0000 UTCPresumably the injunction is to stop the breaching from continuing?I think it's C. I couldn't come up with a decent Haiku, and tried to go a bit more left field, so here's a cinquain: He seeks: Brandon's rights breached, Injunction demanded, Lucy's action rightly countered, He wins!
Dann de Grand Pre
2024-04-11 10:14:00 +0000 UTCI'm assume that "injunction against against the breach" means "court thingy wot sez you gotta stop violating the contract". Which... seems like a totally reasonable thing to exist and I'm confused by Thomas thinking it couldn't possibly be a thing. I could see why not every breach of contract ever wouldn't necessarily warrant an injunction (you'd normally just get damages, or maybe specific performance), so C seems like a good guess to me.
Ignore all previous instructions and seize the means of production
2024-04-11 06:15:57 +0000 UTCNAL, and im an Aussie so i only know US law via this podcast... so here is my blind guess. C - Because i think you can use an injunction against Lucy (and said friend she shared it with) to stop them using/sharing the song. That said, my second choice is D because if the person she shared it with is a friend or something and she was sharing it to get feedback or something, i can see that as a potential personal reason for sharing it
David Bax (Spinobreaker)
2024-04-10 23:30:01 +0000 UTCIn what world are "personal reasons" a valid excuse for breach of contract? Imagine saying to a client "sorry, I just found out you're kind of a dick so you'll need to find another supplier for that order you placed last month". Or maybe this is a good thing! "Sorry Comcast, but you're a shitty company so I just won't be paying those hidden fees or the cancellation fee you just tacked on." That said, while I'm not a lawyer I have listened to enough OA to know that an injunction is appropriate for cases involving exclusive rights, in this case forcing the other singer to either not publish or not perform the song in public, so my answer is C.
Dr Cog
2024-04-10 12:10:25 +0000 UTC"A little stabby..." lol
OhMG
2024-04-10 11:15:49 +0000 UTC
