may be properly regulated and governed is under a duty to shape his conduct in such manner that those rightfully led to act on the faith of his performance shall not suffer loss or injury through his negligence. Dr. Pepper, 148 So.2d at 201. So, while it is true that JNL had a duty to conduct its affairs reasonably and with due care, in this case that duty did not require JNL to protect plaintiff and her husband from harm from any force(s) that JNL did not set into motion. Dr. Pepper Bottling Co. v. Bruner, then, has no coverage over the facts here. Plaintiff also cites several cases in which physicians have been found negligent for acts they performed even though no physician-patient relationship existed, the principal case of which is Meena v. Wilburn, 603 So.2d 866 (Miss.1992) (<HOLDING>). Meena, however, is not applicable here. In
holding that the basis of liability is negligence and not injury holding that such a duty exists holding that the record here fails to establish the first two elements which the court identified as the duty of care and a breach of that duty and as a result a directed verdict  on the issue of liability was warranted holding that the law imposes on every person who enters upon an active course of conduct the positive duty to exercise ordinary care to protect others from harm and calls a violation of that duty negligence  that a complete binding contract between the parties is not a prerequisite to a duty to use due care in ones actions     and that architects may be held liable for a breach of the duty of care and breach of contract that results in foreseeable injury economic or otherwise holding that a doctor may be held liable for negligence if the traditional elements  duty breach of duty causation and injury  are evidenced where such liability is not negated by the absence of a doctorpatient relationship