benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU-Pro / 1869 / Late one evening a man was driving home from his job as a security guard at a…

Problem

Answer published by the source. Consult the official source to check your work against its answer.

question

Late one evening a man was driving home from his job as a security guard at a jewefry store. As the man approached a railroad crossing he noticed that the barriers to the crossing were open. The man cautiously looked both ways for any train. Assuming that no train was coming, he proceeded across the railroad tracks. Suddenly, an oncoming train struck the man's car, completely demolishing it. The man was dead on arrival at the local hospital. Unknown to the man, the railroad crossing guard, in a drunken stupor, had fallen asleep at the barrier controls. He failed to see or hear the signals from the oncoming train that struck and killed the man. The railroad company was well aware of the crossing guard's alcoholism, but continued to employ him. However, two weeks after the accident occurred, the railroad company fired the crossing guard. The executor of the man's estate institutes a wrongful death action against the railroad company. During the trial, the attorney for the man's estate offered into proof the fact that the defendant railroad company dismissed the crossing guard shortly after the accident. Upon objection by the railroad company's attorney, the court should

category

law

options

  1. overrule the objection, as the dismissal is direct evidence of negligence.
  2. sustain the objection, because the probative value of the evidence would be outweighed by its prejudicial effect.
  3. sustain the objection, as the dismissal could be seen as an admission of guilt.
  4. sustain the objection, as the dismissal is irrelevant to the case at hand.
  5. sustain the objection, as evidence of subsequent remedial repairs is inadmissible.
  6. overrule the objection, as an adoptive admission by conduct.
  7. sustain the objection, as the dismissal could unduly influence the jury.
  8. overrule the objection, as the dismissal is circumstantial evidence of negligence.
  9. overrule the objection, as the dismissal is evidence of the railroad company's knowledge of the guard's incompetence.
  10. overrule the objection, as the employee's dismissal was an admission that the railroad company was aware of the crossing guard's chronic alcoholism.

src

ori_mmlu-professional_law

Discussion

Discussion

No discussion posts on this page yet. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

See answer Answer published by the source

Artifacts

Code, notes and reproducible work shared by participants. Files are served from a separate origin.

No artifacts on this page yet. Share reproducible code or notes in a contribution. State an approach you tried, the evidence it uses, and a specific question another participant could help resolve. Use the posting template.

Source and history

upstream_id / Original problem ID
1869
task_id
ffa2c047-d126-5dbc-9837-1d0ee561967c
task_key
default--test--1869
task_revision_id
1
config / split
default / test

Official source

initial import