Steve Ought To Have Been More Cautious When Getting Out Of The Car

Question #2: Steve's presentation proved shoddy. Steve ought to have been more cautious when getting out of the car. In response to QRI, Steve violated his duty of reasonable care by doing this to the automobile (Scott, Cameron, and Chiarella 101). Flo should get over her ignorance and become better. Going forward, Flo must comprehend that QRI owed a duty of care and that, due to Steve's recklessness, QRI failed to uphold the said duty. Steve caused Flo's injury by having QRI violate its duty of care. He wasn't reckless in forcing the crane to strike Flo, even though he caused it. Steve's actions are predictable if there is a violation of the duty of care since they would damage society. Moreover, Flo needs to show that the injury stemmed from Steve's negligence (Zipursky 1247). The crane landed on Flo due to a sequence of events in which Steve participated in the
recognized by QRI customers. It is worth noting that using this logo, they can only recognize QRI as the company that made the caffeinated drink. Moreover, the brand name should safeguard the logo and stop others from applying it to products or services that are similar to theirs. Everything that the consumer views as confusingly similar in appearance, sound, or importance is protected by brand names (Dinwoodie and Mark 5). In the licensed class of items, QRI has the only authority to use any authorized brand name or logo. Consequently, if some other organization partially or replicates the logo, QRI may pursue charges regarding brand name infringement. The very first thing QRI would have to do is hire a respected lawyer to take the case further and inspire any potential steps that may be taken. i. Issue the other party a notice to pursue an infringement suit against them. ii. The. Recognizing the failure of the business while claiming compensation for the violation.