benchmarks.wiki

benchmarks.wiki / Public workspace

MMLU / A plaintiff was suffering from a respiratory infection and his doctor prescribed…

Problem

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

question

A plaintiff was suffering from a respiratory infection and his doctor prescribed for him a drug that was manufactured by a pharmaceutical company. With every prescription of this drug distributed, the company inserted a written warning, which stated:"Use of this drug may cause dizziness. "In accordance with the prescription, the plaintiff received a four-day supply of the drug from his neighborhood pharmacy, which passed along the warning to the plaintiff. After two days, the plaintiff felt much better and went back to work at a home improvement store, where he was the manager. The plaintiff continued to take the drug until his supply was exhausted. On the fourth day, the plaintiff took his final capsule at 2:00 p. m. While he was driving his car home at 5:45 that afternoon, he became dizzy and crashed into a tree. As a result, he received multiple injuries. The plaintiff decided to consult an attorney, who filed a lawsuit on the plaintiff's behalf against the pharmaceutical company, alleging that the company was responsible for the accident and resulting injuries on the theories of negligence and strict liability. At trial, the plaintiff's attorney attempts to introduce evidence that subsequent to this accident, the company expanded its warning to read: "Use of this drug may cause dizziness. Do not drive for five hours after use. "Such evidence is

choices

  1. admissible as an indication that the company did not use due care in wording its original warning.
  2. admissible as a declaration against interest, to prove the possibility of alternate warnings.
  3. inadmissible to show that the company was negligent in wording its original warning.
  4. inadmissible, because the subsequent warning is not relevant to the feasibility of a modified warning.

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
d8a6742d-0077-5046-8d2b-b1a1f57504c3
task_key
all--test--d8a6742d-0077-5046-8d2b-b1a1f57504c3
task_revision_id
1
config / split
all / test

Official source

initial import