Johnnie suffered from a condition that caused him to become unconscious without advance warning. He visited a physician, Dr. Shock, three years earlier and was prescribed a strong dose of medication designed to treat the condition, and was told he could continue to drive a vehicle so long as he continued taking the prescribed medicine. The medication worked well but caused unpleasant side-effects, including nausea. After being on the medication for a year, Dr. Shock had Johnnie cut his prescription in half to reduce the unpleasant side effects. One year later, seeing that Johnnie was having no further medical issues, Dr. Shock took Johnnie off the medication completely. One day, while driving home from work, Johnnie suffered a seizure and lapsed into unconsciousness. The vehicle he was driving swerved into oncoming trafc and collided with a car driven by Susan. Johnnie's vehicle was totaled, but he managed to suffer only minor bruises and scrapes. Susan, however, was seriously injured and required lengthy hospitalization. Susan later sued Johnnie. Which of the following 0 No answer text provided. 0 A. She is likely to recover if it was reasonably foreseeable that changing the prescription could cause harm to a third person 0 B. She is likely to recover, if but for the removal of Johnnie from the medication, the accident would not have occurred. 0 C. She is not likely to recover unless Dr. Shock failed to warn Johnnie about driving without the medication. 0 D. She is not likely to recover if it was reasonable for Dr. Shock to reduce the medication. Given the same facts as in No. 1, Is Johnnie liable to Susan? 0 No answer text provided. 0 A. Yes, because the vehicle he was operating crossed into oncoming trafc. 0 B. Yes, if Johnnie had lapsed into unconsciousness on prior occasions O C. No, because Johnnie was unconscious at the time of the collision O D. No, unless Johnnie had reason to believe that he might lapse into unconsciousness while driving