benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A home security protection company provided protection services to property…

Problem

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

question

A home security protection company provided protection services to property owners in the immediate area. The owner of a summer cottage in the area hired the company to provide 24- hour protection during the winter months when his home was unoccupied. According to the security arrangement, the company's uniformed guards would periodically patrol the property and, if necessary, provide an "armed response" to any unauthorized individuals who were found trespassing on the property. The company provided security protection to the owner's property for two years. The owner then notified the company that he was planning to sell the cottage. As a result, he requested that the company discontinue its home-protection service, effective immediately. Two weeks later, a burglar broke into the cottage and was ransacking it. As the burglar was exiting from the owner's house carrying a portable television set, he was seen by a security guard working for the company. The security guard, who was driving past the home on security patrol, had not been informed that the owner had discontinued protection services. The security guard suddenly stopped his patrol vehicle and ran toward the burglar shouting, "Stop! Don't move or I'll shoot!" Startled, the burglar dropped the television set and began to flee. Believing that the suspected burglar was about to escape, the security guard pulled out his service revolver and fired a bullet at the burglar. The shot struck the burglar in the leg, seriously wounding him. If the burglar asserts a claim against the owner for negligently failing to supervise those providing security services for the owner's property, the burglar will probably

choices

  1. prevail, because the burglar was unarmed when he was shot.
  2. prevail, because the owner knew or had reason to know that the company provided an "armed response" to suspected trespassers.
  3. not prevail, because the owner was not present when the shooting occurred.
  4. not prevail, because the owner had discontinued protection services from the company when the shooting occurred.

subject

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

task_id
4522e3c5-dc56-5d3d-82f4-8748037b5863
task_key
all--test--4522e3c5-dc56-5d3d-82f4-8748037b5863
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import