Confirm favorite deletion?
Torts Keyed to Dobbs
Spengler v. ADT Security Services, Inc.
Only StudyBuddy Pro offers the complete Case Brief Anatomy*
Access the most important case brief elements for optimal case understanding.
*Case Brief Anatomy includes: Brief Prologue, Complete Case Brief, Brief Epilogue
- The Brief Prologue provides necessary case brief introductory information and includes:
- Topic: Identifies the topic of law and where this case fits within your course outline.
- Parties: Identifies the cast of characters involved in the case.
- Procedural Posture & History: Shares the case history with how lower courts have ruled on the matter.
- Case Key Terms, Acts, Doctrines, etc.: A case specific Legal Term Dictionary.
- Case Doctrines, Acts, Statutes, Amendments and Treatises: Identifies and Defines Legal Authority used in this case.
- The Case Brief is the complete case summarized and authored in the traditional Law School I.R.A.C. format. The Pro case brief includes:
- Brief Facts: A Synopsis of the Facts of the case.
- Rule of Law: Identifies the Legal Principle the Court used in deciding the case.
- Facts: What are the factual circumstances that gave rise to the civil or criminal case? What is the relationship of the Parties that are involved in the case. Review the Facts of this case here:
In May 2004, Plaintiff Spengler signed a contract with Defendant ADT to install and monitor a security alarm at the home of his mother Veronica Barker. The agreement included a call button alarm that Barker could activate when in distress, which he requested due to her cancer of the larynx leaving her unable to speak. In October 2005, ADT received an alarm from Barker, but due to an error in the address that ADT gave to the ambulance dispatchers in response to the alarm, the ambulance was delayed 16 minutes. By the time they got there, Barker’s heart rhythm was asystolic, she never regained consciousness, and died in the hospital. Spengler sued ADT alleging that by providing an erroneous address to the dispatcher, ADT committed misfeasance subjecting it to tort liability. The district court granted summary judgment for ADT on the tort claim, finding that ADT breached no duty independent of the contract. The court also granted summary judgment to Spengler on the contract claim, finding that ADT breached the contract and limiting damages to the $500 amount stated in the contract. Spengler appealed arguing that the court erred in finding the case sounded in contract instead of tort, and that the $500 limitation of liability clause was unconscionable and unenforceable.
- Issue(s): Lists the Questions of Law that are raised by the Facts of the case.
- Holding: Shares the Court's answer to the legal questions raised in the issue.
- Concurring / Dissenting Opinions: Includes valuable concurring or dissenting opinions and their key points.
- Reasoning and Analysis: Identifies the chain of argument(s) which led the judges to rule as they did.
- The Brief Prologue closes the case brief with important forward-looking discussion and includes:
- Policy: Identifies the Policy if any that has been established by the case.
- Court Direction: Shares where the Court went from here for this case.