imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Ohner holds title in fee simple to a tract of 1,500 acres. He desires to develop the entire tract as a golf course, country club, and residential subdivision. He contemplates forming a corporation to own and to operate the golf course and country club; the stock in the corporation will be distributed to the owners of lots in the residential portions of the subdivision, but no obligation to issue the stock is to ripen until all the residential lots are sold. The price of the lots is intended to return enough money to compensate Ohner for the raw land, development costs (including the building of the golf course and the country club facilities), and developer's profit, if all of the lots are sold. Ohner's market analyses indicate that he must create a scheme of development that will offer prospective purchasers (and their lawyers) a very high order of assurance that several aspects will be clearly established: Aside from the country club and golf course, there will be no land use other than for residential use and occupancy in the 1,500 acres. The residents of the subdivision will have unambiguous right of access to the club and golf course facilities. Each lot owner must have an unambiguous right to transfer his lot to a purchaser with all original benefits. Each lot owner must be obligated to pay annual dues to a pro rata share (based on the number of lots) of the club's annual operating deficit (whether or not such owner desires to make use of club and course facilities). In the context of all aspects of the scheme, which of the following will offer the best chance of implementing the requirement that each lot owner pay annual dues to support the club and golf course?

Options:
A. Covenant.
B. Easement.
C. Mortgage.
D. Personal contractual obligation by each purchaser.
Answer: B
Question: Paulsen was eating in a restaurant when he began to choke on a piece of food that had lodged in his throat. Dow, a physician who was sitting at a nearby table, did not wish to become involved and did not render any assistance, although prompt medical attention would have been effective in removing the obstruction from Paulsen's throat. Because of the failure to obtain prompt medical attention, Paulsen suffered severe brain injury from lack of oxygen. If Paulsen asserts a claim against Dow for his injuries, will Paulsen prevail?

Options:
A. Yes, if the jurisdiction relieves physicians of malpractice liability for emergency first aid.
B. Yes, if a reasonably prudent person with Dow's experience, training, and knowledge would have assisted Paulsen.
C. No, because Dow was not responsible for Paulsen's condition.
D. No, unless Dow knew that Paulsen was substantially certain to sustain serious injury.
Answer: C
Question: Innes worked as a secretary in an office in a building occupied partly by her employer and partly by Glass, a retail store. The two areas were separated by walls and were in no way connected, except that the air conditioning unit served both areas and there was a common return-air duct. Glass began remodeling, and its employees did the work, which included affixing a plastic surfacing material to counters. To fasten the plastic to the counters, the employees purchased glue, with the brand name Stick, that was manufactured by Steel, packaged in a sealed container by Steel, and retailed by Paint Company. In the course of the remodeling job, one of Glass's employees turned on the air conditioning and caused fumes from the glue to travel from Glass through the air conditioning unit and into Innes's office. The employees did not know that there was common ductwork for the air conditioners. Innes was permanently blinded by the fumes from the glue. The label on the container of glue read, "DANGER. Do not smoke near this product. Extremely flammable. Contains Butanone, Toluol, and Hexane. Use with adequate ventilation. Keep out of the reach of children." The three chemicals listed on the label are very toxic and harmful to human eyes. Steel had received no reports of eye injuries during the 10 years that the product had been manufactured and sold. If Innes asserts a claim against Glass, the most likely result is that she will:

Options:
A. Recover, because a user of a product is held to the same standard as the manufacturer.
B. Recover, because the employees of Glass caused the fumes to enter her area of the building.
C. Not recover, because Glass used the glue for its intended purpose.
D. Not recover, because the employees of Glass had no reason to know that the fumes could injure Innes.
Answer: D
Question: When Denton heard that his neighbor, Prout, intended to sell his home to a minority purchaser, Denton told Prout that Prout and his wife and children would meet with "accidents" if he did so. Prout then called the prospective purchaser and told him that he was taking the house off the market. If Prout asserts a claim against Denton for intentional infliction of emotional distress, Prout will:

Options:
A. Recover if Prout suffered severe emotional distress as a consequence of Denton's conduct.
B. Recover, because Denton intended to frighten Prout.
C. Not recover, because Denton made no threat of immediate physical harm to Prout or his family.
D. Not recover if Prout suffered no physical harm as a consequence of Denton's conduct.
Answer: A
Question: Dave is a six-year-old boy who has a welldeserved reputation for bullying younger and smaller children. His parents have encouraged him to be aggressive and tough. Dave, for no reason, knocked down, kicked, and severely injured Pete, a four-year-old. A claim has been asserted by Pete's parents for their medical and hospital costs and for Pete's injuries. If the claim is asserted against Dave's parents, the most likely result is they will be: 

Options:
A. Liable, because parents are strictly liable for the torts of their children.
B. Liable, because Dave's parents encouraged him to be aggressive and tough.
C. Not liable, because a child under seven is not liable in tort.
D. Not liable, because parents cannot be held liable for the tort of a child.
Answer: B
Question: In a suit attacking the validity of a deed executed 15 years ago, Plaintiff alleges mental incompetency of Joe, the grantor, and offers in evidence a properly authenticated affidavit of Harry, Joe's brother. The affidavit, which was executed shortly after the deed, stated that Harry had observed Joe closely over a period of weeks, that Joe had engaged in instances of unusual behavior (which were described), and that Joe's appearance had changed from one of neatness and alertness to one of disorder and absentmindedness. The judge should rule Harry's affidavit:

Options:
A. Inadmissible as opinion.
B. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception.
C. Admissible as an official document.
D. Admissible as an ancient document.
Answer: B
Question: Oscar, the owner in fee simple, laid out a subdivision of 325 lots on 150 acres of land. He obtained governmental approval (as required by applicable ordinances) and, between 1968 and 1970 , he sold 140 of the lots, inserting in each of the 140 deeds the following provision: The Grantee, for himself and his heirs, assigns and successors, covenants and agrees that the premises conveyed herein shall have erected thereon one singlefamily dwelling and that no other structure (other than a detached garage, normally incident to a single-family dwelling) shall be erected or maintained; and, further, that no use shall ever be made or permitted to be made other than occupancy by a single family for residential purposes only. Because of difficulty encountered in selling the remaining lots for single-family use, in January 1971, Oscar advertised the remaining lots with prominent emphasis: "These lots are not subject to any restrictions and purchasers will find them adaptable to a wide range of uses." Suppose that Oscar sold 50 lots during 1971 without inserting in the deeds any provisions relating to structures or uses. Doyle purchased one of the 50 lots and proposes to erect a service station and to conduct a retail business for the sale of gasoline, etc. Pringle purchased a lot from Boyer. Boyer had purchased from Oscar in 1968 and the deed had the provision that is quoted in the fact situation. Pringle brings suit to prevent Doyle from erecting the service station and from conducting a retail business. In the litigation between Pringle and Doyle, which of the following constitutes the best defense for Doyle?

Options:
A. Oscar's difficulty in selling with provisions relating to use establishes a change in circumstances which renders any restrictions which may once have existed unenforceable.
B. Enforcement of the restriction, in view of the change of circumstances, would be an unreasonable restraint on alienation. 
C. Since the proof (as stated) does not establish a danger of monetary loss to Pringle, Pringle has failed to establish one of the necessary elements in a cause of action to prevent Doyle from using his lot for business purposes.
D. The facts do not establish a common building or development scheme for the entire subdivision.
Answer: D
Question: Dave is a six-year-old boy who has a welldeserved reputation for bullying younger and smaller children. His parents have encouraged him to be aggressive and tough. Dave, for no reason, knocked down, kicked, and severely injured Pete, a four-year-old. A claim has been asserted by Pete's parents for their medical and hospital costs and for Pete's injuries. If the claim is asserted against Dave, the most likely result is Dave will be:

Options:
A. Liable, because he intentionally harmed Pete.
B. Liable, because, as a six-year-old, he should have known his conduct was wrongful.
C. Not liable, because a child under seven is not liable in tort.
D. Not liable, because he is presumed to be under his parents' control and they have the sole responsibility.
Answer: A
Question: Brown suffered from the delusion that he was a special agent of God. He frequently experienced hallucinations in the form of hearing divine commands. Brown believed God told him several times that the local Roman Catholic bishop was corrupting the diocese into heresy, and that the bishop should be "done away with." Brown, a devout Catholic, conceived of himself as a religious martyr. He knew that shooting bishops for heresy is against the criminal law. $\mathrm{He}$ nevertheless carefully planned how he might kill the bishop. One evening Brown shot the bishop, who was taken to the hospital, where he died two weeks later. Brown told the police he assumed the institutions of society would support the ecclesiastical hierarchy, and he expected to be persecuted for his God-inspired actions. Psychiatrist Stevens examined Brown and found that Brown suffered from schizophrenic psychosis, that in the absence of this psychosis he would not have shot the bishop, and that because of the psychosis Brown found it extremely difficult to determine whether he should obey the specific command that he do away with the bishop or the general commandment "Thou shalt not kill"; Brown was charged with murder. If Brown interposes an insanity defense and the jurisdiction in which he is tried has adopted only the M'Naghten test of insanity, then the strongest argument for the defense under that test is that:

Options:
A. Brown did not know the nature of the act he was performing.
B. Brown did not know that his act was morally wrong.
C. Brown did not know the quality of the act he was performing.
D. Brown's acts were the product of a mental disease.
Answer: B
Question: Dutton, disappointed by his eight-year-old son's failure to do well in school, began systematically depriving the child of food during summer vacation. Although his son became seriously ill from malnutrition, Dutton failed to call a doctor. He believed that as a parent he had the sole right to determine whether the child was fed or received medical treatment. Eventually, the child died. An autopsy disclosed that the child had suffered agonizingly as a result of the starvation, that a physician's aid would have alleviated the suffering, and that although the child would have died in a few months from malnutrition, the actual cause of death was an untreatable form of cancer. The father was prosecuted for murder, defined in the jurisdiction as "unlawful killing of a human being with malice aforethought." 'The father should be:

Options:
A. Acquitted, because of the defendant's good faith belief concerning parental rights in supervising children.
B. Acquitted, because summoning the physician or feeding the child would not have prevented the child's death from cancer.
C. Convicted, because the father's treatment of his son showed a reckless indifference to the value of life.
D. Convicted, because the child would have died from malnutrition had he not been afflicted with cancer.
Answer: B
Question: Tom had a heart ailment so serious that his doctors had concluded that only a heart transplant could save his life. They therefore arranged to have him flown to Big City to have the operation performed. Dan, Tom's nephew, who stood to inherit from him, poisoned him. The poison produced a reaction which required postponing the journey. The plane on which Tom was to have flown crashed, and all aboard were killed. By the following day, Tom's heart was so weakened by the effects of the poison that he suffered a heart attack and died. If charged with criminal homicide, Dan should be found:

Options:
A. Guilty.
B. Not guilty, because his act did not hasten the deceased's death, but instead prolonged his life by one day.
C. Not guilty, because the deceased was already suffering from a fatal illness.
D. Not guilty, because the poison was not the sole cause of death. 
Answer: A
Question: Parker sued Dodd over title to an island in a river. Daily variations in the water level were important. For many years Wells, a commercial fisherman, kept a daily log of the water level at his dock opposite the island in order to forecast fishing conditions. Parker employed Zee, an engineer, to prepare graphs from Wells's log. Wells was called to testify to the manner in which he kept the log, which had been available for inspection. His testimony should be:

Options:
A. Excluded on a general objection because not admissible for any purpose. 
B. Excluded on a specific objection that it calls for hearsay.
C. Admitted to support the credibility of Wells and Zee as witnesses.
D. Admitted as part of the foundation for admission of Zee's graphs.
Answer: D
Question: Paula sued for injuries she sustained in a fall in a hotel hallway connecting the lobby of the hotel with a restaurant located in the hotel building. The hallway floor was covered with vinyl tile. The defendants were Horne, owner of the hotel building, and Lee, lessee of the restaurant. The evidence was that the hallway floor had been waxed approximately an hour before Paula slipped on it, and although the wax had dried, there appeared to be excessive dried wax caked on several of the tiles. Horne's defense was that the hallway was a part of the premises leased to Lee over which he retained no control, and Lee denied negligence and alleged contributory negligence. If Paula offered to prove that the day after she fell, Horne had the vinyl tile taken up and replaced with a new floor covering, the trial judge should rule the evidence:

Options:
A. Admissible, because it is relevant to the issue of whether Horne retained control of the hallway. 
B. Admissible, because it is relevant in the issue of awareness of the unsafe condition of the hallway at the time of Paula's fall.
C. Inadmissible, because there was no showing that the new floor covering would be any safer than the old.
D. Inadmissible, because to admit such would discourage a policy of making repairs to prevent further injury, regardless of fault.
Answer: A
Question: Peters sued Davis for $ 100,000$ for injuries received in a traffic accident. Davis charges Peters with contributory negligence and alleges that Peters failed to have his lights on at a time when it was dark enough to require them. Davis offers to have Bystander testify that he was talking to Witness when he heard the crash and heard Witness, now deceased, exclaim, "That car doesn't have any lights on." Bystander's testimony is:

Options:
A. Admissible as a statement of present sense impression.
B. Admissible, because Witness is not available to testify.
C. Inadmissible as hearsay not within any exception.
D. Inadmissible, because of the Dead Man's Statute.
Answer: A
Question: Assume for the purposes of this question that you are counsel to the state legislative committee that is responsible for real estate laws in your state. The committee wants you to draft a statute, governing the recording of deeds, that fixes priorities of title, as reflected on the public record, as definitely as possible. Which of the following, divorced from other policy considerations, would best accomplish this particular result?

Options:
A. Eliminate the requirement of witnesses to deeds.
B. Make time of recording the controlling factor.
C. Make irrebuttable the declarations in the deeds that valuable consideration was paid.
D. Make the protection of bona fide purchasers the controlling factor.
Answer: B
Question: Ogden was the fee simple owner of three adjoining vacant lots fronting on a common street in a primarily residential section of a city which had no zoning laws. The lots were identified as Lots 1, 2, and 3. Ogden conveyed Lot 1 to Akers and Lot 2 to Bell. Ogden retained Lot 3, which consisted of three acres of woodland. Bell, whose lot was between the other two, built a house on his lot. Bell's house included a large window on the side facing Lot 3 . The window provided a beautiful view from Bell's living room, thereby adding value to Bell's house. Akers erected a house on his lot. Ogden made no complaint to either Akers or Bell concerning the houses they built. After both Akers and Bell had completed their houses, the two of them agreed to and did build a common driveway running from the street to the rear of their respective lots. The driveway was built on the line between the two houses so that one-half of the way was located on each lot. Akers and Bell exchanged right-of-way deeds by which each of them conveyed to the other, his heirs and assigns, an easement to continue the right of way. Both deeds were properly recorded. After Akers and Bell had lived in their respective houses for 30 years, a new public street was built bordering on the rear of Lots 1, 2, and 3 . Akers informed Bell that, since the new street removed the need for their common driveway, he considered the right-of-way terminated; therefore, he intended to discontinue its use and expected Bell to do the same. At about the same time, Ogden began the erection of a six-story apartment house on Lot 3 . If the apartment house is completed, it will block the view from Bell's window and will substantially reduce the value of Bell's lot. In an action brought by Bell to enjoin Akers from interfering with Bell's continued use of the common driveway between the two lots, the decision should be for:

Options:
A. Akers, because the termination of the necessity for the easement terminated the easement.
B. Akers, because the continuation of the easement after the change of circumstances would adversely affect the marketability of both lots without adding any commensurate value to either. 
C. Bell, because an incorporeal hereditament lies in grant and cannot be terminated without a writing.
D. Bell, because the removal of the need for the easement created by express grant does not affect the right to the easement.
Answer: D
Question: Philip was a 10-year-old boy. Macco was a company that sold new and used machinery. Macco stored discarded machinery, pending sale for scrap, on a large vacant area it owned. This area was unfenced and was one-quarter mile from the housing development where Philip lived. Macco knew that children frequently played in this area and on the machinery. Philip's parents had directed him not to play on the machinery because it was dangerous. One day Philip was playing on a press in Macco's storage area. The press had several wheels, each geared to the other. Philip climbed on the largest wheel, which was about five feet in diameter. Philip's weight caused the wheel to rotate, his foot was caught between two wheels that were set into motion, and he was severely injured. A claim for relief was asserted by Philip through a duly appointed guardian. Macco denied liability and pleaded Philip's contributory fault as a defense. In determining whether Macco breached a duty to Philip, which of the following is the most significant?

Options:
A. Whether the press on which Philip was injured was visible from a public way.
B. Whether the maintenance of the area for the storage of discarded machinery was a private nuisance. 
C. Whether the maintenance of the area of the storage of discarded machinery was a public nuisance.
D. Whether Macco could have eliminated the risk of harm without unduly interfering with Macco's normal operations.
Answer: D