benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / At approximately 3:00 p. m. on December 3, a motorist was speeding down a street…

Problem

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

question

At approximately 3:00 p. m. on December 3, a motorist was speeding down a street at the same time that a pedestrian was crossing the street. When the pedestrian started to cross the street, she saw the traffic light was red. She momentarily stopped, thought about waiting until the light turned green, but then decided to cross anyway. As the pedestrian was halfway across the street, the motorist, who was driving 50 m. p. h. in a 25 m. p. h. zone, struck her with his vehicle. The pedestrian suffered a broken pelvis and internal injuries in the accident. While in the hospital, the pedestrian's insurance company paid $10,000 of her medical expenses. Six months later, the pedestrian brought suit against the motorist to recover damages for all her medical expenses. This jurisdiction has a "modified" comparative negligence statute in effect. Suppose a jury returned a special verdict with the following findings: (1) The motorist was 60 percent negligent in speeding; (2) The pedestrian was 40 percent at fault in crossing the street against the red light; and (3) The pedestrian suffered damages from the accident totaling $50,000. After the verdict, the court was advised that the pedestrian's insurance company had already paid the pedestrian $10,000. As a result, the court should enter a judgment for the pedestrian in the amount of
Plain-text mathematical notation (without MathML)
At approximately 3:00 p. m. on December 3, a motorist was speeding down a street at the same time that a pedestrian was crossing the street. When the pedestrian started to cross the street, she saw the traffic light was red. She momentarily stopped, thought about waiting until the light turned green, but then decided to cross anyway. As the pedestrian was halfway across the street, the motorist, who was driving 50 m. p. h. in a 25 m. p. h. zone, struck her with his vehicle. The pedestrian suffered a broken pelvis and internal injuries in the accident. While in the hospital, the pedestrian's insurance company paid $10,000 of her medical expenses. Six months later, the pedestrian brought suit against the motorist to recover damages for all her medical expenses. This jurisdiction has a "modified" comparative negligence statute in effect. Suppose a jury returned a special verdict with the following findings: (1) The motorist was 60 percent negligent in speeding; (2) The pedestrian was 40 percent at fault in crossing the street against the red light; and (3) The pedestrian suffered damages from the accident totaling $50,000. After the verdict, the court was advised that the pedestrian's insurance company had already paid the pedestrian $10,000. As a result, the court should enter a judgment for the pedestrian in the amount of
Original LaTeX notation
At approximately 3:00 p. m. on December 3, a motorist was speeding down a street at the same time that a pedestrian was crossing the street. When the pedestrian started to cross the street, she saw the traffic light was red. She momentarily stopped, thought about waiting until the light turned green, but then decided to cross anyway. As the pedestrian was halfway across the street, the motorist, who was driving 50 m. p. h. in a 25 m. p. h. zone, struck her with his vehicle. The pedestrian suffered a broken pelvis and internal injuries in the accident. While in the hospital, the pedestrian's insurance company paid $10,000 of her medical expenses. Six months later, the pedestrian brought suit against the motorist to recover damages for all her medical expenses. This jurisdiction has a "modified" comparative negligence statute in effect. Suppose a jury returned a special verdict with the following findings: (1) The motorist was 60 percent negligent in speeding; (2) The pedestrian was 40 percent at fault in crossing the street against the red light; and (3) The pedestrian suffered damages from the accident totaling $50,000. After the verdict, the court was advised that the pedestrian's insurance company had already paid the pedestrian $10,000. As a result, the court should enter a judgment for the pedestrian in the amount of

choices

  1. $50,000, because the motorist's negligence was greater than the pedestrian's.
  2. $30,000, the proportion of the pedestrian's damages caused by the motorist's negligence, but the payment of $10,000 in hospital expenses will be disregarded under the collateral source rule.
  3. $20,000, the proportion of the pedestrian's damages caused by her own negligence, but the payment of $10,000 in hospital expenses will be disregarded under the collateral source rule.
  4. $10,000, the proportion of the pedestrian's damages caused by her own negligence, less the $10,000 in hospital expenses already paid by the insurance company.

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
8a24a20c-b742-547d-89d2-7633c3d443c3
task_key
all--test--8a24a20c-b742-547d-89d2-7633c3d443c3
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import