imone/ARB huggingface dataset:
Question: Paula's friend Roberto told her that she could use his lakeside cabin for the weekend. Roberto gave Paula instructions on how to find his cabin, but once Paula arrived at the lake, she found that all the cabins looked very similar. Paula rechecked Roberto's instructions and then entered the cabin that she thought belonged to Roberto. In fact, the cabin belonged to Otto. After Paula unpacked her luggage, she realized that the cabin was quite cold. Thus, she gathered some wood from the woodpile and started a fire in the fireplace. Unbeknownst to Paula, the fireplace flue was blocked and so an explosion ensued; Paula was injured by the explosion. Otto had known that the flue was blocked, but he had not gotten around to having the problem fixed. If Paula sues Otto for her injuries, who will prevail?

Options:
A. Paula, because Otto knew that the flue was defective.
B. Paula, because Otto had a duty to warn of the defect. 
C. Otto, but only if he had no reason to anticipate that anyone would be in the cabin.
D. Otto, because he owed no duty to Paula.
Answer: C
Question: In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be guilty of common law murder?

Options:
A. As a joke, Defendant trips Tom as he walks by. As a result of the fall, Tom hits his head on the corner of a desk and dies immediately.
B. During a heated argument, Ed punches Defendant in the stomach. Angered, Defendant responds by stabbing Ed with a knife and killing him instantly.
C. While driving home from work late one night, Defendant falls asleep behind the wheel of his automobile. His car drifts across the middle of the road, strikes a car, and the other driver is killed instantly in the collision.
D. Angered because his neighbor is playing his stereo at a very high volume, Defendant fires a gun into the neighbor's house. The bullet strikes and kills neighbor's wife.
Answer: D
Question: Asa was an old man who had few friends and most of whose relatives had died. One day, while Asa was studying a chess problem at the senior citizens center, a young woman asked him if he would care to play a game. The woman had accompanied her grandmother to the center. Soon the woman, whose name was Stephanie, was visiting the center regularly to play chess with Asa. They became close friends and often visited each other's homes. Asa decided that he would like Stephanie to have his only real asset, Oldacre, the singlefamily residence in which he lived. He wrote a note to Stephanie dated December 25, 2003, stating, "Because you have been such a good friend to a lonely old man, I want you to have this house and land."' He then went to Lawyer and had Lawyer draft a deed conveying Oldacre to Stephanie. Asa validly executed the deed and gave both the note and the executed deed to the director of the senior citizens center telling him to give them to Stephanie upon his death. Asa continued to live at Oldacre until his death in July of 2004. A will Asa had executed in 1987 was admitted to probate shortly thereafter; the will left all of Asa's property to a cousin in another state. When Stephanie received the note and deed from the lawyer prior to the probate of Asa's estate, she promptly recorded the deed, and after probate, she brought an appropriate action to quiet her title to the property conveyed by the deed. In that action, the court should find for:

Options:
A. Stephanie, because the deed as delivered constituted a valid conveyance of Oldacre.
B. Stephanie, because Asa's note to her constituted a valid conveyance of Oldacre.
C. The cousin, because the deed conveying Oldacre to Stephanie was not recorded and thus was not effective until after Asa's death.
D. The cousin, because the fact that Asa remained in possession of Oldacre rendered the conveyance in the deed to Stephanie ineffective.
Answer: A
Question: In which of the following situations would Defendant's claim of intoxication most likely result in a finding of not guilty?

Options:
A. Defendant is charged with battery after wounding Hal by shooting him. Defendant claims that he was too drunk to realize that anyone was in the house into which he shot.
B. Defendant is charged with manslaughter when he hit and killed a child while riding his motorcycle. Defendant claims that he was so drunk he did not see the child in time to avoid hitting her.
C. Defendant is charged with larceny. Defendant claims that when he took the car he was too drunk to realize that it was not his.
D. Defendant is charged with involuntary manslaughter after her unsupervised fouryear-old child was killed in a fire at their home. Defendant claims that she was at the corner bar, drunk, when the fire occurred.
Answer: C
Question: Parker was a guest at Hotel, located about 200 miles from his home. After Parker had spent two nights at Hotel, he received a call at 5 a.m. from his wife, who told him that their child had just been rushed to the hospital and was in critical condition. Parker decided to hurry home. He called the airport and reserved space on the next flight out, scheduled to leave at $6: 15$ a.m. Parker packed and rushed to the lobby. However, it happened that a number of guests were checking out early that morning, and thus there was a long line ahead of him and only one cashier on duty. Parker hoped that the line would move quickly, but when he heard the first guest in line arguing with Stockton, the desk clerk, over a $25 / otin$ telephone charge, he realized that he would never make it to the airport in time if he continued to wait in line. The hotel had no express check-out service available, so he left without paying his bill and flew home. As soon as Parker's child was out of danger, he wrote a letter to Hotel, apologizing for his swift departure and enclosing payment for two nights' lodging; he also added an extra $ 25$ "to cover any inconvenience and billing expense" he may have caused. Meanwhile, Stockton discovered that Parker had left without paying. On Hotel's behalf, Stockton signed a complaint with the state police, charging Parker with theft of services. The police went to the appropriate magistrate, and a warrant was sworn out for Parker's arrest. The day after Parker left Hotel, Hotel received Parker's letter and payment. However, no one notified the police that Parker had paid his bill. Three days after Parker left Hotel, the state police, armed with a warrant, came to Parker's office and arrested him. Despite Parker's objections, he was taken to jail. Although he repeatedly told the police that he had paid his bill and suggested that they call Hotel, they refused to do so. After holding Parker for 18 hours, the police called Hotel. The manager told the police, "Yes, we got Parker's check two days ago, but we were too busy to call you." The police, with apologies, released Parker. Parker sued Hotel and the state police for false imprisonment. Will Parker prevail in his action against the police?

Options:
A. Yes, because of Parker's protestations of innocence.
B. Yes, because Parker had not stolen services.
C. No, because the police acted pursuant to a valid warrant.
D. No, because Hotel had reasonable grounds for signing a complaint against Parker.
Answer: C
Question: Civil service rules, which have been on the books in the city of Charlesville for many years, provide that any member of the police department must serve a one-year probationary period before he or she will be considered a permanent employee. In fact, this rule was enacted before Charlesville had a police academy, and now a prospective police officer spends six months in the academy before being hired by the city. Ruby, a graduate of the police academy, was with the city police department for eight months when she was terminated. There were no city ordinances or state laws that required that Ruby be given a reason for the termination or a hearing, and she was given neither. Which of the following facts, if shown, gives the city of Charlesville the strongest argument for refusing to give Ruby a statement of reasons why her employment was terminated and for denying her the opportunity to contest the termination? 

Options:
A. Ruby, as a female, did not perform as a police officer as well as her male counterparts.
B. Ruby had failed to include in her application the fact that during college she was a member of a radical student organization.
C. Ruby had not been granted permanent employment status.
D. Ruby had graduated in last place in her class at the police academy.
Answer: C
Question: While it was parked on a side street, Driver's car was severely damaged by a hit-and-run accident. While the car was being repaired, Driver arranged to borrow a car from his friend, Lender, to drive until Driver's car was finished. Lender had an extra car that had not been driven for some time, which he gladly allowed Driver to use. However, when Driver picked up the car, Lender forgot to warn Driver that the brake fluid had a tendency to leak out of the brake system and needed to be replaced regularly. Lender telephoned Driver's wife, Rider, and warned her about the brake fluid problem. Rider, however, forgot to tell Driver. Shortly thereafter, Driver was driving Rider to work in the borrowed car. Driver was proceeding along at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit. As he approached an intersection, another car, driven by Reckless, ran through the red light and into the intersection. Driver, upon seeing Reckless's car, stepped on the brakes, but the brakes failed and the two cars collided. If the proper amount of brake fluid had been in the brake system, Driver could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Driver and Rider were injured. The jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence. If Driver asserts a claim against Reckless, Driver will:

Options:
A. Recover only a portion of his damages, because Rider was also at fault. 
B. Recover the full amount of his damages, because Driver himself was not at fault.
C. Not recover, because Driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
D. Not recover, because Rider was negligent in not telling Driver about the defective brake condition, and Rider's negligence would be imputed to driver.
Answer: B
Question: While it was parked on a side street, Driver's car was severely damaged by a hit-and-run accident. While the car was being repaired, Driver arranged to borrow a car from his friend, Lender, to drive until Driver's car was finished. Lender had an extra car that had not been driven for some time, which he gladly allowed Driver to use. However, when Driver picked up the car, Lender forgot to warn Driver that the brake fluid had a tendency to leak out of the brake system and needed to be replaced regularly. Lender telephoned Driver's wife, Rider, and warned her about the brake fluid problem. Rider, however, forgot to tell Driver. Shortly thereafter, Driver was driving Rider to work in the borrowed car. Driver was proceeding along at a reasonable rate of speed and within the posted speed limit. As he approached an intersection, another car, driven by Reckless, ran through the red light and into the intersection. Driver, upon seeing Reckless's car, stepped on the brakes, but the brakes failed and the two cars collided. If the proper amount of brake fluid had been in the brake system, Driver could have stopped in time to avoid the collision. Driver and Rider were injured. The jurisdiction has adopted "pure" comparative negligence. If Rider asserts a claim against Reckless, Rider will:

Options:
A. Recover in full for her injury, because Driver, who was driving the car in which she was riding, was not himself at fault.
B. Recover a portion of her damages, based on the respective degrees of her negligence and that of Reckless.
C. Not recover, because Driver had the last clear chance to avoid the accident.
D. Not recover, because Rider was primarily at fault for the collision.
Answer: B
Question: On a wholly random basis, a state agency has given a few probationary employees who were not rehired at the end of their probationary period a statement of reasons and an opportunity for a hearing; but the agency has very rarely done so. No statute or rule of the agency required such a statement of reasons or a hearing. The employment of Masters, a probationary employee, was terminated without a statement of reasons or an opportunity for a hearing. The agency did not even consider whether it should give him either. A suit by Masters requesting a statement of reasons and a hearing will probably be:

Options:
A. Successful, on the grounds that failure to give Masters reasons and an opportunity for a hearing constituted a bill of attainder.
B. Successful, on the grounds that an agency's inconsistent practices, even if unintentional, deny adversely affected persons the equal protection of the laws.
C. Unsuccessful, because Masters does not have a right to be rehired that is protected by procedural due process.
D. Unsuccessful, because the conditions of state employment are matters reserved to the states by the Tenth Amendment.
Answer: C
Question: Constance owned Greenacre in fee simple. She executed two instruments in the proper form of deeds. The first instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Henry and his wife, Audrey, as joint tenants with right of survivorship. The second instrument purported to convey an undivided one-half interest in Greenacre to Susan, the only child of Henry. Susan was 13 years old at the time. The common law joint tenancy is unmodified by statute. No actual consideration was paid for the deeds. Constance handed the two deeds to Henry. Henry promptly and properly recorded the deed to himself and Audrey and put the deed to his daughter, Susan, in a safe-deposit box without recording it. The same year, Henry, Audrey, and Susan were on a vacation when the plane in which they were flying went down, and all three were killed simultaneously. Henry, Audrey, and Susan died intestate. The applicable statute in the jurisdictions provides that "when title to property on its devolution depends on priority of death and there is insufficient evidence that the persons have died otherwise than simultaneously, the property of each person shall be disposed of as if he had survived." An appropriate action was instituted by the heirs of Henry, Audrey, and Susan. Constance, who is not an heir of any of the deceased, was a party to the action. The court should determine that title to Greenacre is:

Options:
A. Entirely in Constance.
B. One-half in the heirs of Henry and one-half in the heirs of Audrey.
C. One-half in Constance, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey.
D. One-half in the heirs of Susan, one-quarter in the heirs of Henry, and one-quarter in the heirs of Audrey. 
Answer: D
Question: Dryden is tried on a charge of driving while intoxicated. When Dryden was booked at the police station, a videotape was made that showed him unsteady, abusive, and speaking in a slurred manner. If the prosecutor lays a foundation properly identifying the tape, should the court admit it in evidence and permit it to be shown to the jury?

Options:
A. Yes, because it is an admission.
B. Yes, because its value is not substantially outweighed by unfair prejudice.
C. No, because the privilege against selfincrimination is applicable.
D. No, because specific instances of conduct cannot be proved by extrinsic evidence. 
Answer: B
Question: Davis is arrested and tried for battery. At trial, the prosecution offers evidence that shows Davis punched Verne in the stomach. In which of the following situations is Davis most likely to be not guilty of battery?

Options:
A. Davis was heavily intoxicated and was attempting to swat at a fly when he punched Verne.
B. Davis, who had just awakened from a deep sleep, was not fully aware of what was happening and mistakenly thought Verne was attacking him.
C. Davis was suffering from an epileptic seizure and had no control over his motions.
D. Davis, angered by something Verne had said, punched him in retaliation.
Answer: C
Question: The state legislature of Nevada enacted legislation prohibiting the use of tractor-trailer rigs weighing more than 100,000 pounds gross, after lengthy hearings demonstrated to the legislators' satisfaction that superheavy trucks rapidly degrade the state's roadways and pose a greater safety danger than smaller trucks. Western States Freight, a trucking firm that frequently uses Nevada highways for trips between Colorado and California, has recently purchased several tractor-trailer rigs weighing over 100,000 pounds when loaded. Most of its equipment may still be legally used in Nevada, but the firm does not want to have to exclude the superheavies from the California runs and plans to gradually replace its older trucks with larger models. Western brings an action for declaratory relief in federal court in Colorado, seeking to have the Nevada legislation declared unconstitutional. The state of Nevada asserts that the legislation is justified as an exercise of the state's police power based upon safety considerations, and that the court may not second-guess the state legislators as to this subject. None of the evidence presented at the legislative hearings is produced in court. Western presents expert testimony that the heavier trucks are no less safe than smaller models. The trial court should rule:

Options:
A. That the legislation is an unconstitutional violation of Western's Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process of law.
B. That the legislation is unconstitutional because it violates the Commerce Clause.
C. That the legislation is a valid exercise of the state's police power to regulate highway safety.
D. That the evidence of the damage done to the state's highways by the superheavy trucks is sufficient to uphold the legislation independently of the safety argument.
Answer: B
Question: Howard and Wendy were engaged and looking for a lovely lot on which to build their dream house. They fell in love with Blueacre at first sight and purchased it, taking title as joint tenants with right of survivorship. Before construction of the dream house could begin, Howard discovered that Wendy was having an affair with Claude, and the engagement was called off. Wanting to obtain the money to run off with Claude, Wendy wanted to sell Blueacre. Howard refused to sell. Wendy put Blueacre up for sale anyway, and when Tim agreed to purchase it, Wendy forged Howard's signature on the deed conveying Blueacre to Tim. Who owns Blueacre?

Options:
A. Howard only.
B. Tim only.
C. Howard and Tim as tenants in common.
D. Howard, Wendy, and Tim as tenants in common.
Answer: C
Question: Penelope was injured when the car she was driving was struck by a truck owned by Deeco and driven by Deeco's employee, Albert. Albert was just finishing his deliveries for Deeco when the accident occurred. At the scene of the accident, Walter, a bystander, heard Albert say, "I can't believe it ... I shouldn't have had all those beers." Penelope sued Deeco for her injuries and asked Walter to testify at trial as to Albert's statement. Walter's testimony should be ruled:

Options:
A. Admissible, as a statement against interest.
B. Admissible, as an admission of a partyopponent.
C. Admissible, as an excited utterance.
D. Inadmissible, as hearsay.
Answer: B
Question: Lynn entered into an enforceable written agreement to sell her home to Werner for $ 150,000$. The agreement provided that escrow would close on March 31, and on that date Lynn would provide good and marketable title to the house, free and clear of all encumbrances. On March 10, Lynn was notified by her insurance company that she had to renew her insurance policy by March 15 . Lynn immediately notified the company that she did not want the insurance renewed at that time. Consequently, when the house was destroyed by fire on March 25, it was uninsured. On March 31, Werner refused to close and Lynn immediately brought an action against him for specific performance. In this jurisdiction, which has no applicable statute to govern this situation, the most probable result of this action would be:

Options:
A. Werner prevails, because an implied term of all conveyances is that the property at the time of closing will be in substantially the same condition as it was at the time the contract was entered into.
B. Werner prevails, because as the house was destroyed, Lynn would have nothing to "sell" and, therefore, could not convey marketable title.
C. Lynn prevails, because under the doctrine of equitable conversion, the risk of loss was on Werner.
D. Lynn prevails, but since the house was destroyed, she is only entitled to recover the fair market value of the land itself.
Answer: C
Question: The state police of New Lancashire wished to infiltrate the Aryan Consciousness Movement ("ACM"), a racist organization devoted to the goal of creating an "All White America." The New Lancashire police decided to create a new undercover position for the person who would infiltrate the ACM. The pay was substantially better than the salary of ordinary officers. Dimer, the chief personnel officer of the New Lancashire State Police, put out a memo inviting all white New Lancashire police officers to apply for the undercover position. Pendergrass had been a New Lancashire State Police officer for eight years and had received many citations for efficiency, bravery, and public service. However, Pendergrass is black, and Dimer refused to even accept his application for the undercover position, even though Pendergrass told Dimer that he was very desirous of obtaining the position. If Pendergrass sues to require Dimer to give serious consideration to his application, should the court rule that Dimer has acted in a manner in accordance with the principles of the United States Constitution?

Options:
A. Yes, because the state has a rational basis for using race as a qualification for the job.
B. Yes, because the state has a compelling interest in infiltrating $\mathrm{ACM}$, to promote the general welfare of its citizens.
C. No, because Dimer's actions were discriminatory per se.
D. No, if there is a chance that Pendergrass might be able to win the confidence of ACM leaders.
Answer: B
Question: While Doug was driving Olivia's car, he hit Peter in a pedestrian right-of-way. Peter sued both Doug and Olivia, alleging that Doug had negligently driven the car and that Olivia had negligently permitted an unfit driver to use her car. Assume for the purposes of this question only that the day after the preexisting structure is demolished and the rubble removed, a severe storm causes gigantic waves that erode the seashore so that Owner's lot is now under water. Must Builder still perform the contract?

Options:
A. No, the contract is void because the subject of the contract was destroyed through no fault of the parties.
B. No, Builder is discharged of his obligation because of impossibility of performance.
C. Yes, if Owner obtains an alternative lot within a reasonable period of time.
D. No, the contract is void because of mutual mistake.
Answer: B
Question: On January 1, Fred executed and delivered a deed to his daughter, Diane, conveying his avocado ranch as follows: "To Diane for life, but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and children, then to Diane's spouse for life, with the remainder in fee simple to Diane's children; but if Diane dies survived by her spouse and no children, then to my son Sam in fee simple." On June 15, Diane married George and as a wedding gift Fred quitclaimed his interest in the avocado ranch to George. Assume that the jurisdiction does not follow the doctrine of destructibility of contingent remainders. On December 1, Diane died without children and without a will. The applicable law of intestate succession provides that George is Diane's only heir. Sam claims that George has no interest in the land. Title to the avocado ranch is held by whom?

Options:
A. George, because of the doctrine of merger.
B. George, because Diane died intestate and her fee simple passed to him as her intestate heir.
C. Sam, because the interest granted to Diane's spouse is void under the Rule Against Perpetuities.
D. Sam, because Diane, although survived by her spouse, died without children.
Answer: D