imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Auto Company, a corporation, was a small dealer in big new cars and operated a service department. Peter wanted to ask Mike, the service manager, whether Auto Company would check the muffler on his small foreign car. Peter parked on the street near the service department with the intention of entering that part of the building by walking through one of the three large entrances designed for use by automobiles. There was no street entrance to the service department for individuals, and customers as well as company employees often used one of the automobile entrances. As Peter reached the building, he glanced behind him to be sure no vehicle was approaching that entrance. Seeing none, he walked through the entrance, but immediately he was struck on the back of the head and neck by the large overhead door which was descending. The blow knocked Peter unconscious and caused permanent damage. Peter did not know how the door was raised and lowered; however, the overhead door was operated by the use of either of two switches in the building. One switch was located in the office of the service manager and the other was located near the door in the service work area for the convenience of the mechanics. On this occasion, no one was in the service work area except three Auto Company mechanics. Mike, who had been in his office, and the three mechanics denied having touched a switch that would have lowered the door. Subsequent investigation showed, however, that the switches were working properly and that all of the mechanisms for moving the door were in good working order. If Peter asserts a claim based on negligence against Auto Company, Peter probably will:

Options:
A. Recover, because Auto Company is strictly liable under the circumstances.
B. Recover, because an employee of Auto Company was negligent.
C. Not recover, because Peter was a licensee.
D. Not recover, because Peter assumed the risk.
Answer: B
Question: Dever drove his car into an intersection and collided with a fire engine that had entered the intersection from Dever's right. The accident was caused by negligence on Dever's part. As a result of the accident, the fire engine was delayed in reaching Peters's house, which was entirely consumed by fire. Peters's house was located about 10 blocks from the scene of the accident. If Peters asserts a claim against Dever, Peters will recover:

Options:
A. That part of his loss that would have been prevented if the collision had not occurred.
B. The value of his house before the fire.
C. Nothing if Dever had nothing to do with causing the fire.
D. Nothing, because Dever's conduct did not create an apparent danger to Peters.
Answer: A
Question: Ted frequently visited Janet, his next-door neighbor. Janet was separated from her husband, Howard. Howard resided with his mother but jointly owned the house in which Janet resided. Late one night, Ted and Janet were sitting on the bed in Janet's bedroom drinking when Howard burst through the door and told Ted, "Get out!" When Ted refused, Howard challenged him to go outside and "fight it out." Ted again refused. Howard then pulled a knife from his pocket and lunged at Ted. Ted grabbed a lamp, struck Howard on the head, and killed him. Ted is charged with murder. On a charge of murder, Ted should be found:

Options:
A. Not guilty, because Ted had as much right as Howard to be in the house.
B. Not guilty, because Howard attacked Ted with a deadly weapon.
C. Guilty, because Ted's presence in Janet's bedroom prompted Howard's attack.
D. Guilty, because Ted's failure to obey Howard's order to leave the house made him a trespasser.
Answer: B
Question: Adams, Bennett, and Curtis are charged in a common law jurisdiction with conspiracy to commit larceny. The state introduced evidence that they agreed to go to Nelson's house to take stock certificates from a safe in Nelson's bedroom, that they went to the house, and that they were arrested as they entered Nelson's bedroom. Adams testified that he thought the stock certificates belonged to Curtis, that Nelson was improperly keeping them from Curtis, and that he went along to aid in retrieving Curtis's property. Bennett testified that he suspected Adams and Curtis of being thieves and joined up with them in order to catch them. He also testified that he made an anonymous telephone call to the police alerting them to the crime and that the call caused the police to be waiting for them when they walked into Nelson's bedroom. Curtis did not testify. If the jury believes Adams, it should find him:

Options:
A. Guilty, because there was an agreement and the entry into the bedroom is sufficient for the overt act.
B. Guilty, because good motives are not a defense to criminal liability.
C. Not guilty, because he did not have a corrupt motive.
D. Not guilty, because he did not intend to steal.
Answer: D
Question: Price sued Derrick for injuries Price received in an automobile accident. Price claimed Derrick was negligent in (a) exceeding the posted speed limit of 35 m.p.h., (b) failing to keep a lookout, and (c) crossing the center line. Derrick testified in his own behalf that he was going 30 m.p.h. On cross-examination, Price's counsel did not question Derrick with regard to his speed. Subsequently, Price's counsel calls Officer to testify that, in his investigation following the accident, Derrick told him he was driving 40 m.p.h. Officer's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as a prior inconsistent statement.
B. Admissible as an admission.
C. Inadmissible, because it lacks a foundation.
D. Inadmissible, because it is hearsay not within any exception.
Answer: B
Question: In City of State Y, Maple Street is a local public thoroughfare, designated as a one-way street for northbound traffic. Pine Street is a public thoroughfare, designated as a one-way street for eastbound traffic. Maple and Pine Streets intersect at right angles. The intersection is controlled by traffic lights. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the northwest corner, for traffic on Maple Street. There are two sets of lights, one at the northeast corner and one at the southeast corner, for traffic on Pine Street. Trucker was making a delivery to a market on the east side of Maple Street, just north of its intersection with Pine Street. There being insufficient space for his truck and enclosed trailer, he parked it with the rear of the trailer extending entirely across the crosswalk on the north side of the intersection. The height of the trailer was such that it entirely obscured the traffic light on the northeast corner from the view of traffic moving east on Pine Street. Unknown to Trucker, the traffic light at the southeast corner was not functioning, because a collision 72 hours earlier had knocked down the pole from which the light was suspended. Visitor, on his first trip to City, was driving east on Pine Street. Not seeing any traffic light or pole, he entered the intersection at a time when the light was red for eastbound traffic and green for northbound traffic. Driver, proceeding north on Maple Street and seeing the green light, entered the intersection without looking for any cross traffic and struck Visitor's car. Driver received personal injuries, and Visitor's car was damaged severely as a result of the impact. Statutes of State Y make it a misdemeanor (1) to park a motor vehicle so that any part projects into a crosswalk and (2) to enter an intersection contrary to a traffic signal. If Driver asserts a claim against Trucker and establishes that Trucker was negligent, the likely result is that Trucker's negligence is:

Options:
A. A legal but not an actual cause of Driver's injuries.
B. An actual but not a legal cause of Driver's injuries.
C. Both an actual and a legal cause of Driver's injuries.
D. Neither an actual nor a legal cause of Driver's injuries.
Answer: C
Question: On October 1, Toy Store, Inc., entered into a written contract with Fido Factory, Inc., for the purchase at $ 20$ per unit of 1,000 mechanical dogs, to be specially manufactured by Fido according to Toy Store's specifications. Fido promised to deliver all of the dogs "not later than November 15, for the Yule shopping season,"' and Toy Store promised to pay the full $ 20,000$ price upon delivery. In order to obtain operating funds, Fido as borrower entered into a written loan agreement on October 5 with the High Finance Company. In relevant part, this agreement recited, "Fido Factory hereby transfers and assigns to High Finance its (Fido Factory's) October 1 mechanical dog contract with Toy Store, as security for a 50 -day loan of $ 15,000$, the advance and receipt of which are hereby acknowledged by Fido Factory. ..." No copy of this agreement, or statement relating to it, was filed in an office of public record. On October 15, Fido notified Toy Store, "We regret to advise that our master shaft burned out last night because our night supervisor let the lubricant level get too low. We have just fired the supervisor, but the shaft cannot be repaired or replaced until about January 1. We can guarantee delivery of your order, however, not later than January 20." Toy Store rejected this proposal as unacceptable and immediately contracted with the only other available manufacturer to obtain the 1,000 dogs at $ 30$ per unit by November 15 . For this question only, assume that by November 16, Fido, without legal excuse, has delivered no dogs, and that Toy Store has brought no action against Fido. In an action brought on November 16 by Toy Store against High Finance Company because of Fido's default, Toy Store can recover:

Options:
A. Nothing, because the October 5 assignment by Fido to High Finance of Fido's contract with Toy Store was only an assignment for security.
B. Nothing, because no record of the October 5 transaction between Fido and High Finance was publicly filed.
C. $ 10,000$ in damages, because Toy Store was a third-party intended beneficiary of the October 5 transaction between Fido and High Finance. 
D. $ 10,000$ in damages, because the October 5 transaction between Fido and High Finance effected, with respect to Toy Store as creditor, a novation of debtors.
Answer: A
Question: In which of the following situations is Defendant's claim of intoxication most likely to result in his being found not guilty?

Options:
A. Defendant is charged with manslaughter for a death resulting from an automobile accident. Defendant, the driver, claims he was so drunk he was unable to see the other car involved in the accident.
B. Defendant is charged with assault with intent to kill Watts, as a result of his wounding Watts by shooting him. Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize anyone else was around when he fired the gun.
C. Defendant is charged with armed robbery. He claims he was so drunk he did not know whether the gun was loaded.
D. Defendant is charged with statutory rape, after he had sexual intercourse with a girl aged 15 , in a jurisdiction where the age of consent is 16 . Defendant claims he was so drunk he did not realize the girl was a minor.
Answer: B
Question: Owner and his employee, Driver, consult Attorney about a motor vehicle collision resulting in a suit by Litigant against Owner and Driver as joint defendants. Attorney calls Irving, his investigator, into the conference to make notes of what is said, and those present discuss the facts of the collision and Owner's insurance. Owner thereafter files a cross-claim against Driver for indemnity for any damages obtained by Litigant. Litigant calls Driver to testify in Litigant's case-in-chief to admissions made by Owner in the conference. On objection by Owner, the court should rule that Driver's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible, because of the presence of persons in the conference other than Attorney and Owner.
B. Admissible, because Driver is an adverse party in the lawsuit.
C. Inadmissible, because of the attorney-client privilege.
D. Inadmissible, because the best evi- dence is Irving's notes of the conference.
Answer: C
Question: Odum owned Brightacre (a tract of land) in fee simple. He conveyed it "to Pike, his heirs and assigns; but if Farley shall be living 30 years from the date of this deed, then to Farley, his heirs and assigns." The limitation "to Farley, his heirs and assigns" is:

Options:
A. Valid, because Farley's interest is a reversion.
B. Valid, because the interest will vest, if at all, within a life in being.
C. Valid, because Farley's interest is vested subject to divestment.
D. Invalid.
Answer: B
Question: Meadowview is a large tract of undeveloped land. Black, the owner of Meadowview, prepared a development plan creating 200 house lots in Meadowview with the necessary streets and public areas. The plan was fully approved by all necessary governmental agencies and duly recorded. However, construction of the streets, utilities, and other aspects of the development of Meadowview has not yet begun, and none of the streets can be opened as public ways until they are completed in accordance with the applicable ordinances of the municipality in which Meadowview is located. College Avenue, one of the streets laid out as part of the Meadowview development, abuts Whiteacre, an adjacent one-acre parcel owned by White. Whiteacre has no access to any public way except an old, poorly developed road which is inconvenient and cannot be used without great expense. White sold Whiteacre to Breyer. The description used in the deed from White to Breyer was the same as that used in prior deeds except that the portion of the description which formerly said, "thence by land of Black, northeasterly a distance of 200 feet, more or less," was changed to "thence by College Avenue as laid out on the Plan of Meadowview North $16^{\circ}$ East $201.6$ feet," with full reference to the plan and as recording data. Breyer now seeks a building permit which will show that Breyer intends to use College Avenue for access to Whiteacre. Black objects to the granting of a building permit on the grounds that he has never granted any rights to White or Breyer to use College Avenue. There are no governing statutes or ordinances relating to the problem. Black brings an appropriate action in which the right of Breyer to use College Avenue without an express grant from Black is at issue. The best argument for Breyer in this action is that:

Options:
A. There is a way by necessity over Meadowview's lands to gain access to a public road.
B. The deed from White to Breyer referred to the recorded plan and therefore created rights to use the streets delineated on the plan.
C. Sale of lots in Meadowview by reference to its plan creates private easements in the streets shown on the plan.
D. The recording of the plan is a dedication of the streets shown on the plan to public use. 
Answer: D
Question: Purvis purchased a used car from Daley, a used-car dealer. Knowing them to be false, Daley made the following statements to Purvis prior to the sale: Statement 1. This car has never been involved in an accident. Statement 2. This car gets 25 miles to the gallon on the open highway. Statement 3. This is as smooth-riding a car as you can get. If Purvis asserts a claim against Daley based on deceit, which of the false statements made by Daley would support Purvis's claim?

Options:
A. Statement 1. only.
B. Statement 2. only.
C. Statements 1. and 2. only.
D. Statements 2. and 3. only.
Answer: C
Question: Mrs. Ritter, a widow, recently purchased a new uncrated electric range for her kitchen from Local Retailer. The range has a wide oven with a large oven door. The crate in which Stove Company, the manufacturer, shipped the range carried a warning label that the stove would tip over with a weight of 25 pounds or more on the oven door. Mrs. Ritter has one child-Brenda, age three. Recently, at about 5:30 p.m., Brenda was playing on the floor of the kitchen while Mrs. Ritter was heating water in a pan on the stove. The telephone rang and Mrs. Ritter went into the living room to answer it. While she was gone Brenda decided to find out what was cooking. She opened the oven door and climbed on it to see what was in the pan. Brenda's weight ( 25 pounds) on the door caused the stove to tip over forward. Brenda fell to the floor and the hot water spilled over her, burning her severely. Brenda screamed. Mrs. Ritter ran to the kitchen and immediately gave her first aid treatment for burns. Brenda thereafter received medical treatment. Brenda's burns were painful. They have now healed and do not bother her, but she has ugly scars on her legs and back. Brenda's claim is asserted on her behalf by the proper party. If Brenda asserts a claim based on strict liability against Local Retailer, she must establish that:

Options:
A. Local Retailer did not inform Mrs. Ritter of the warning on the crate.
B. The stove was substantially in the same condition at the time it tipped over as when it was purchased from Local Retailer.
C. Local Retailer made some change in the stove design or had improperly assembled it so that it tipped over more easily.
D. Local Retailer knew or should have known that the stove was dangerous because of the ease with which it tipped over.
Answer: B
Question: Parents purchased a new mobile home from Seller. The mobile home was manufactured by Mobilco and had a ventilating system designed by Mobilco with both a heating unit and an air conditioner. Mobilco installed a furnace manufactured by Heatco and an air conditioning unit manufactured by Coolco. Each was controlled by an independent thermostat installed by Mobilco. Because of the manner in which Mobilco designed the ventilating system, the first time the ventilating system was operated by Parents, cold air was vented into Parents' bedroom to keep the temperature at $68^{\circ}$ $\mathrm{F}\left(20^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\right)$. The cold air then activated the heater thermostat, and hot air was pumped into the bedroom of Child, the six-month-old child of Parents. The temperature in Child's room reached more than $170^{\circ} \mathrm{F}\left(77^{\circ} \mathrm{C}\right)$ before Child's mother became aware of the condition and shut the system off manually. As a result, Child suffered permanent physical injury. Claims have been asserted by Child, through a duly appointed guardian, against Mobilco, Seller, Heatco, and Coolco. If Child's claims against Mobilco, Heatco, and Coolco are based on strict liability in tort, Child will probably recover against:

Options:
A. Mobilco only, because the ventilating system was defectively designed by Mobilco.
B. Heatco only, because it was the excessive heat from the furnace that caused Child's injuries.
C. Mobilco and Heatco only, because the combination of Mobilco's design and Heatco's furnace caused Child's injuries.
D. Mobilco, Heatco, and Coolco, because the combination of Mobilco's design, Heatco's furnace, and Coolco's air conditioning unit caused Child's injuries. 
Answer: A
Question: When Esther, Gray's 21-year-old daughter, finished college, Gray handed her a signed memorandum stating that if she would go to law school for three academic years, he would pay her tuition, room, and board, and would "give her a $ 1,000$ bonus" for each "A" she got in law school. Esther's uncle, Miller, who was present on this occasion, read the memorandum and thereupon said to Esther, "and if he doesn't pay your expenses, I will." Gray paid her tuition, room, and board for her first year but died just before the end of that year. Subsequently, Esther learned that she had received two "As" in the second semester. The executor of Gray's estate has refused to pay her anything for the two "As" and has told her that the estate will no longer pay her tuition, room, and board in law school. In an action by Esther against Miller on account of the executor's repudiation of Gray's promise to pay future tuition, room, and board, which of the following would be Miller's strongest defense?

Options:
A. The parties did not manifestly intend a contract.
B. Gray's death terminated the agreement.
C. The agreement was oral.
D. The agreement was divisible.
Answer: C
Question: Jackson and Brannick planned to break into a federal government office to steal food stamps. Jackson telephoned Crowley one night and asked whether Crowley wanted to buy some "hot" food stamps. Crowley, who understood that "hot" meant stolen, said, "Sure, bring them right over." Jackson and Brannick then successfully executed their scheme. That same night they delivered the food stamps to Crowley, who bought them for $ 500$. Crowley did not ask when or by whom the stamps were stolen. All three were arrested. Jackson and Brannick entered guilty pleas in federal court to a charge of larceny in connection with the theft. Crowley was brought to trial in the state court on a charge of conspiracy to steal food stamps. On the evidence stated, Crowley should be found:

Options:
A. Guilty, because, when a new confederate enters a conspiracy already in progress, he becomes a party to it.
B. Guilty, because he knowingly and willingly aided and abetted the conspiracy and is chargeable as a principal.
C. Not guilty, because, although Crowley knew the stamps were stolen, he neither helped to plan nor participated or assisted in the theft.
D. Not guilty, because Jackson and Brannick had not been convicted of or charged with conspiracy, and Crowley cannot be guilty of conspiracy by himself.
Answer: C
Question: Park brought an action against Dan for injuries received in an automobile accident, alleging negligence in that Dan was speeding and inattentive. Park calls White to testify that Dan had a reputation in the community of being a reckless driver and was known as "Daredevil Dan." White's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as habit evidence.
B. Admissible, because it tends to prove that Dan was negligent at the time of this collision.
C. Inadmissible, because Dan has not offered testimony of his own good character.
D. Inadmissible to show negligence.
Answer: D
Question: Pemberton and three passengers, Able, Baker, and Charley, were injured when their car was struck by a truck owned by Mammoth Corporation and driven by Edwards. Helper, also a Mammoth employee, was riding in the truck. The issues in Pemberton $v$. Mammoth include the negligence of Edwards in driving too fast and in failing to wear glasses, and of Pemberton in failing to yield the right of way. Pemberton's counsel seeks to introduce Helper's written statement that Edwards, Mammoth's driver, had left his glasses (required by his operator's license) at the truck stop which they had left five minutes before the accident. The judge should rule the statement admissible only if:

Options:
A. Pemberton first proves that Helper is an agent of Mammoth and that the statement concerned a matter within the scope of his agency. 
B. Pemberton produces independent evidence that Edwards was not wearing corrective lenses at the time of the accident.
C. Helper is shown to be beyond the process of the court and unavailable to testify.
D. The statement was under oath in affidavit form.
Answer: A
Question: Lord leased a warehouse building and the lot on which it stood to Taylor for a term of 10 years. The lease contained a clause prohibiting Taylor from subletting his interest. Can Taylor assign his interest under the lease? 

Options:
A. Yes, because restraints on alienation of land are strictly construed.
B. Yes, because disabling restraints on alienation are invalid.
C. No, because the term "subletting" includes "assignment" when the term is employed in a lease.
D. No, because even in the absence of an express prohibition on assignment, a tenant may not assign without the landlord's permission.
Answer: A
Question: Testator devised his farm "to my son, Selden, for life, then to Selden's children and their heirs and assigns." Selden, a widower, had two unmarried adult children. In an appropriate action to construe the will, the court will determine that the remainder to the children is:

Options:
A. Indefeasibly vested.
B. Contingent.
C. Vested subject to partial defeasance.
D. Vested subject to complete defeasance.
Answer: C