ncoop57/mmmlu huggingface dataset:
Sand Company operated an installation for distributing sand and gravel. The installation was adjacent to a residential area. On Sand's grounds there was a chute with polished metal sides for loading sand and gravel into trucks. The trucks being loaded stopped on the public street below the chute. After closing hours, a plywood screen was placed in the chute and the ladder used for inspection was removed to another section of the installation. For several months, however, a number of children, eight to ten years of age, had been playing on Sand's property and the adjoining street after closing hours. The children found the ladder and also discovered that they could remove the plywood screen from the chute and slide down to the street below. Sand knew of this activity. One evening, the children were using the chute as a play device. As an automobile driven by Commuter approached the chute, Ladd, an eight-year-old boy, slid down just in front of the automobile. Commuter applied her brakes, but they suddenly failed, and she hit and injured Ladd. Commuter saw the child in time to have avoided hitting him if her brakes had worked properly. Two days previously, Commuter had taken her car to Garage to have her brakes inspected. Garage inspected the brakes and told her that the brakes were in perfect working order. Claims were asserted on behalf of Ladd by his proper legal representative against Sand, Commuter, and Garage."On Ladd's claim against Commuter, Commuter's best defense is that
A. her conduct was not the cause in fact of the harm.
B. she used reasonable care in the maintenance of her brakes.
C. she could not reasonably foresee Ladd's presence in the street.
D. she did not act willfully and wantonl
Answer: B
Driving down a dark road, Defendant accidentally ran over a man. Defendant stopped and found that the victim was dead. Defendant, fearing that he might be held responsible, took the victim's wallet, which contained a substantial amount of money. He removed the identification papers and put the wallet and money back into the victim's pocket. Defendant is not guilty of
A. larceny, because he took the papers only to prevent identification and not for his own use. 
B. larceny, because he did not take anything from a living victim. 
C. robbery, because he did not take the papers by means of force or putting in fear. 
D. robbery, because he did not take anything of monetary valu
Answer: C
Al and Bill are identical twins. Al, angry at David, said, "You'd better stay out of my way. The next time I find you around here, I'll beat you up." Two days later, while in the neighborhood, David saw Bill coming toward him. As Bill came up to David, Bill raised his hand. Thinking Bill was Al and fearing bodily harm, David struck Bill. If Bill asserts a claim against David and David relies on the privilege of self-defense, David will
A. not prevail, because Bill was not an aggressor. 
B. not prevail unless Bill intended his gesture as a threat.
C. prevail if David honestly believed that Bill would attack him.
D. prevail only if a reasonable person under the circumstances would have believed that Bill would attack him
Answer: D
Section 1 of the Vehicle Code of State makes it illegal to cross a street in a central business district other than at a designated crosswalk. Section 2 of the Code prohibits parking any motor vehicle so that it blocks any part of a designated crosswalk. Ped wanted to cross Main Street in the central business district of City, located in State, but a truck parked by Trucker was blocking the designated crosswalk. Ped stepped out into Main Street and carefully walked around the back of the truck. Ped was struck by a motor vehicle negligently operated by Driver."If Ped asserts a claim against Driver, Ped's failure to be in the crosswalk will have which of the following effects?
A. It is not relevant in determining the right of Ped.
B. It may be considered by the trier of fact on the issue of Driver's liability.
C. It will bar Ped's recovery unless Driver saw Ped in time to avoid the impact.
D. It will bar Ped's recovery as a matter of law
Answer: B
Section 1 of the Vehicle Code of State makes it illegal to cross a street in a central business district other than at a designated crosswalk. Section 2 of the Code prohibits parking any motor vehicle so that it blocks any part of a designated crosswalk. Ped wanted to cross Main Street in the central business district of City, located in State, but a truck parked by Trucker was blocking the designated crosswalk. Ped stepped out into Main Street and carefully walked around the back of the truck. Ped was struck by a motor vehicle negligently operated by Driver."If Ped asserts a claim against Trucker, the most likely result is that Ped will
A. prevail, because Trucker's violation of a state statute makes him strictly liable for all injuries caused thereby. 
B. prevail, because the probable purpose of Section 2 of the Vehicle Code of State was to safeguard pedestrians in using crosswalks. 
C. not prevail, because Ped assumed the risk of injury when he crossed the street outside the crosswalk. 
D. not prevail, because Driver's conduct was the actual cause of Ped's harm
Answer: B
Suspecting that students were using narcotics, the president of a private college arranged for local police to place concealed microphones in several suites of the dormitory. Using these microphones, the college security officers recorded a conversation in which Green, a student, offered to sell marijuana to another student. The tape was turned over to the local police, who played it for a local judge. The judge issued a warrant to search Green's room. The room was searched by police, and marijuana was discovered. Green is charged with unlawful possession of narcotics. At trial, Green's motion to prevent the introduction of the marijuana into evidence will most probably be
A. denied, because the college president, in loco parentis, had the responsibility of preventing unlawful activity by students under the president's supervision. 
B. denied, because there was probable cause to make the search and police obtained a warrant before commencing the search. 
C. granted, because Green's privacy was unreasonably invaded. 
D. granted, because the electronic surveillance was "fundamentally unfair.
Answer: C
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
A. guilty.
B. not guilty, because his act did not hasten the deceased's death, but instead prolonged it 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 deat
Answer: A
In which of the following situations is Defendant most likely to be not guilty of the charge made?
A. Police arrested Thief and recovered goods he had stolen. At the direction of the police, Thief took the goods to Defendant. Defendant, believing the goods to be stolen, purchased them. Defendant is charged with attempting to receive stolen property. 
B. Defendant misrepresented his identity to secure a loan from a bank. The banker was not deceived and refused to grant the loan. Defendant is charged with attempting to obtain property by false pretenses.
C. Believing that state law made it a crime to purchase codeine without a prescription, Defendant purchased, without a prescription, cough syrup containing codeine. Unknown to Defendant, the statute had been repealed and codeine could be legally purchased without a prescription. Defendant is charged with attempting to purchase codeine without a prescription. 
D. Defendant, intending to kill Selma, shot at Selma. Unknown to Defendant, Selma had died of a heart attack minutes before Defendant shot at her. Defendant is charged with attempted murder.
Answer: C
Potts sued Dobbs on a product liability claim. Louis testified for Potts. On cross-examination, which of the following questions is the trial judge most likely to rule improper?
A. "Isn't it a fact that you are Potts' close friend?" 
B. "Isn't it true that you are known in the community as  Louie the Lush' because of your addiction to alcohol?" 
C. "Didn't you fail to report some income on your tax return last year?" 
D. "Weren't you convicted, seven years ago in this court, of obtaining money under false pretenses?"
Answer: B
In an action to recover for personal injuries arising out of an automobile accident, Plaintiff calls Bystander to testify. Claiming the privilege against self-incrimination, Bystander refuses to answer a question as to whether she was at the scene of the accident. Plaintiff moves that Bystander be ordered to answer the question. The judge should allow Bystander to remain silent only if
A. the judge is convinced that she will incriminate herself.
B. there is clear and convincing evidence that she will incriminate herself.
C. there is a preponderance of evidence that she will incriminate herself.
D. the judge believes that there is some reasonable possibility that she will incriminate herself
Answer: D
Blackacre is a three-acre tract of land with a small residence. Olga, the owner of Blackacre, rented it to Terrence at a monthly rental of $200. After Terrence had been in possession of Blackacre for several years, Terrence and Olga orally agreed that Terrence would purchase Blackacre from Olga for the sum of $24,000, payable at the rate of $200 a month for 10 years, and also would pay the real estate taxes and the expenses of insuring and maintaining Blackacre. Olga agreed to give Terrence a deed to Blackacre after five years had passed and $12,000 had been paid on account and to accept from Terrence a note secured by a mortgage for the balance. Terrence continued in possession of Blackacre and performed his obligations as orally agreed. Terrence, without consulting Olga, made improvements for which he paid $1,000. When Terrence had paid $12,000, he tendered a proper note and mortgage to Olga and demanded the delivery of the deed as agreed. Olga did not deny the oral agreement but told Terrence that she had changed her mind and refused to complete the transaction. Terrence then brought an action for specific performance. Olga pleaded the Statute of Frauds as her defense. If Olga wins, it will be because
A. nothing Terrence could have done would have overcome the original absence of a written agreement.
B. the actions and payments of Terrence are as consistent with his being a tenant as with an oral contract.
C. Terrence did not secure Olga's approval for the improvements that he made.
D. Olga has not received any unconscionable benefit, and therefore Terrence is not entitled to equitable relief.
Answer: B
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the Swelter City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous's president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward"In which of the following ways could the city reward offer be effectively accepted?
A. Only by an offeree's return promise to make a reasonable effort to bring about the arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.
B. Only by an offeree's making the arrest and assisting in the successful conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.
C. By an offeree's supplying information leading to arrest and conviction of an arsonist within the scope of the offer.
D. By an offeree's communication of assent through the same medium (television) used by the city in making its offer.
Answer: C
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the Swelter City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous's president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward"With respect to duration, the city's reward offer was terminable
A. by lapse of time, on December 31 of the year in which it was made. 
B. not by lapse of time, but only by effective revocation. 
C. not by revocation, but only by lapse of a reasonable time. 
D. either by lapse of a reasonable time or earlier by effective revocatio
Answer: D
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the Swelter City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous's president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward"If the city's reward offer was revocable, revocation could be effectively accomplished only
A. by publication in the legal notices of a local newspaper.
B. in the same manner as made, i.e., by local telecast at least once daily for one week. 
C. in the same manner as made or by a comparable medium and frequency of publicity.
D. by notice mailed to all residents of the city and all other reasonably identifiable potential offerees
Answer: C
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the Swelter City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous's president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward"Which of the following best characterizes the relationship between Humongous and Gimlet?
A. A unilateral offer of employment by Humongous which became irrevocable for a reasonable number of days after Gimlet commenced his investigation of the store's arson.
B. An employment for compensation subject to a condition precedent that Gimlet succeed in his investigation.
C. A series of daily bilateral contracts, Humongous exchanging an express promise to pay the daily rate for Gimlet's implied promise to pursue his investigation with reasonable diligence. 
D. A series of daily unilateral contracts, Humongous exchanging an express promise to pay the daily rate for Gimlet's daily activity of investigating the store's arson
Answer: D
During 1976 a series of arsons, one of which damaged the Humongous Store, occurred in the City of Swelter. In early 1977 Swelter's City Council adopted this resolution: The City will pay $10,000 for the arrest and conviction of anyone guilty of any of the 1976 arsons committed here. The foregoing was telecast by the city's sole television station once daily for one week. Subsequently, Humongous, by a written memorandum to Gimlet, a private detective, proposed to pay Gimlet $200 "for each day's work you actually perform in investigating our fire." Thereafter, in August 1977, the Swelter City Council by resolution repealed its reward offer and caused this resolution to be broadcast once daily for a week over two local radio stations, the local television station having meanwhile ceased operations. In September 1977, a Humongous employee voluntarily confessed to Gimlet to having committed all of the 1976 arsons. Humongous's president thereupon paid Gimlet at the proposed daily rate for his investigation and suggested that Gimlet also claim the city's reward, of which Gimlet had been previously unaware. Gimlet immediately made the claim. In December 1977, as a result of Gimlet's investigation, the Humongous employee was convicted of burning the store. The city, which has no immunity to suit, has since refused to pay Gimlet anything, although he swears that he never heard of the city's repealer before claiming its reward"In a suit by Gimlet against the city to recover the $10,000 reward, which of the following, in light of the facts given, most usefully supports Gimlet's claim?
A. The city was benefited as a result of Gimlet's services.
B. The city's offer was in the nature of a bounty, so that the elements of contract are not essential to the city's liability. 
C. The fact that the city attempted to revoke its offer only a few months after making it demonstrated that the attempted revocation was in bad faith.
D. Although there was no bargained-for exchange between Gimlet and the city, Gimlet's claim for the reward is supported by a moral obligation on the part of the city
Answer: B
Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife."If Wife asserts a claim based on battery against Grower, will Wife prevail?
A. Yes, because Grower intended that the dog frighten Wife. 
B. Yes, because the breaking of the leash establishes liability under res ipsa loquitur. 
C. No, because Wife made an unauthorized entry on Grower's land. 
D. No, because Grower did not intend to cause any harmful contact with Wife
Answer: A
Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife.". If Husband asserts a claim based on assault against Grower, will Husband prevail?
A. Yes, because the landowner did not have a privilege to use excessive force. 
B. Yes, if Husband reasonably believed that the dog might bite him. 
C. No, if the dog did not come in contact with him. 
D. No, if Grower was trying to protect his
Answer: B
Husband and Wife, walking on a country road, were frightened by a bull running loose on the road. They climbed over a fence to get onto the adjacent property, owned by Grower. After climbing over the fence, Husband and Wife damaged some of Grower's plants which were near the fence. The fence was posted with a large sign, "No Trespassing." Grower saw Husband and Wife and came toward them with his large watchdog on a long leash. The dog rushed at Wife. Grower had intended only to frighten Husband and Wife, but the leash broke, and before Grower could restrain the dog, the dog bit Wife."If Grower asserts a claim against Wife and Husband for damage to his plants, will Grower prevail?
A. Yes, because Wife and Husband entered on his land without permission. 
B. Yes, because Grower had posted his property with a "No Trespassing" sign. 
C. No, because Wife and Husband were confronted by an emergency situation. 
D. No, because Grower used excessive force toward Wife and Husban
Answer: A